Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Subduction Zone]

No you can't, again you have nothing but assumptions.

This is a falsehood. The only reason that it is not a lie is due to your lack of education in the sciences. In the sciences what is and what is not evidence is very well defined and the theory of evolution is extremely well supported by evidence. I do not think that you are lying. You are simply using terms that you do not understand and have made the error to trust known liars.

 

[coffee4u]

Incorrect. You are the one making assumptions. Decay rates have been tested. They do not change.

Tested where? They took a time machine back to the garden of Eden and tested them there? That world is gone. They tested them here- this world. This world is not the past world.

 

[coffee4u]

This is a falsehood. The only reason that it is not a lie is due to your lack of education in the sciences. In the sciences what is and what is not evidence is very well defined and the theory of evolution is extremely well supported by evidence. I do not think that you are lying. You are simply using terms that you do not understand and have made the error to trust known liars.

Still waiting on this so called proof of mans evolution that you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So much bunkum. Not a single scripture proclaims the earth to be flat.
But I know you atheists want to propagate that silly idea.

It is too bad that you do not understand the Bible or geometry. The Bible describes the Earth as flat in both word and deed. It never describes it as spherical.

Are you familiar with the "circle of the Earth" verse? News flash, circles are flat. It is even worse in the original Hebrew since the word used is that of an inscribed circle as with a compass. Those are always flat.

And there are two verses, often described as "visions" in a defense, but that makes no difference. When Satan showed Jesus all of the world they climbed a tall mountain. Why did they do that? There would be no need to do that on a spherical Earth. It would accomplish the goal on a flat one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tested where? They took a time machine back to the garden of Eden and tested them there? That world is gone. They tested them here- this world. This world is not the past world.

If you want to claim that you need to find evidence for it.

All of the evidence out there says that this is the same world.

 

[Bradskii]

Not a dome, a dome would indicate a flat earth and the scripture does not teach that. The canopy would have surround the world.

One doesn't have to study science to know of the existence of things like gravity. I don't have to fully understand gravity or be able to explain it to you. Because I couldn't, not unless you are happy with "when we throw something it falls back to the earth" How is that for you? Just because I wouldn't know the scientific details doesn't mean I don't know of its existence.
I don't study science or even creation science beyond a quick read now and then, just highlights of an article; I study scripture. If you want scientific details ask someone who follows creation science.

Again, I don't want details. You said there were different laws. It seems (not unsurprisingly) that you wouldn't know if there actually were or if there were, what they might have been. All you are going by is a literal reading of scripture and then saying 'Well, things were different back then'.

That doesn't carry a lot of weight, I'm afraid. How am I to treat it seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting on this so called proof of mans evolution that you have.

It was not offered to you and you would not almost surely not be able to understand it. Besides that was not what I offered to prove.

 

[coffee4u]

If you want to claim that you need to find evidence for it.

All of the evidence out there says that this is the same world.

Our proof is scripture.

 

[dlamberth]

Make human one of them. I don't care what other one.

I have no doubt evolution occurred. What I'm asking is if there was enough time in the few billion years after primordial soup, for that life formed in the primordial soup to become a human present day.

From the time of the Dinosaurs demise to the age of large mammals is only 20 million years or so. That's pretty quick. It seems to me that another 40 million years for human development is plenty of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our proof is scripture.

Sorry scripture is not "proof". It is not even evidence. Scripture is just the claim. I could write something down and I could claim that it was "proof".

I would suggest that you learn what is and what is not evidence. It won't take long.

 

[Fervent]

It is too bad that you do not understand the Bible or geometry. The Bible describes the Earth as flat in both word and deed. It never describes it as spherical.

Are you familiar with the "circle of the Earth" verse? News flash, circles are flat. It is even worse in the original Hebrew since the word used is that of an inscribed circle as with a compass. Those are always flat.

And there are two verses, often described as "visions" in a defense, but that makes no difference. When Satan showed Jesus all of the world they climbed a tall mountain. Why did they do that? There would be no need to do that on a spherical Earth. It would accomplish the goal on a flat one.

Are you certain חוּג and circle have the same semantic domain?

 

[Occams Barber]

It's possible to get a rough idea. In fact, Dawkins book 'An Ancestors Tale' might have mentioned it. But it's years since I read it and I couldn't find my copy when it came up in discussion on another thread.

...what one could do is note (as he does in his book) the major changes that took place from us back to bacteria. If you took each of his stages, estimated how long they existed in their specific species before branching off into the next ancestor, you'd have a list of all previous ancestors (well, best guess at the major ones) and the length of time they existed. I did find a rough compilation that someone had done from the info in the book.

Monkeys and apes: 40MY(3M)
Mammals: 180MY(120M)
Reptiles: 310MY(170M)
Ray finned fish: 440MY(195M)
Sharks, hagfish and lampreys: 530MY(240M)
Lancelets and all chordates: 560MY(270M)

Multiply each length by the time it took any given species to reach maturity so you'd have the number of generations. Add them all up and you'd have a very rough idea of the number of generations between you and your earliest common ancestor. Someone here Can we make a rough estimate of the number of generations since the origin of life? estimates it to be 1x10^12 generations.

How many generations does it need to produce a beneficial mutation? Well, now we have the same problem as the Drake equation for estimating the number of alien civilisations. You don't have exact figures with which to work. But you can plug in something that sounds reasonable and see what it gives you.

Bear in mind that there may be a few large mutations that give an evolutionary benefit or there may be very many that give small incremental benefits.

It's an interesting question but not one that's going to get you a very accurate answer.

You'd also need to multiply each generation by the number of individuals in that generation. Then multiply that again by the average number of transmissible positive mutations in each individual. The end result would be the total number of positive and neutral mutations since life began. Bear in mind also that the change caused by a particular mutation may be useful today but useless tomorrow.

I don't know what the number might be but I can tell you it's very, very,very,very,very >>> big.

OB

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you certain חוּג and circle have the same semantic domain?

Personally no. But other scholars of Hebrew do give the definitions that I alluded to. And that is just one example. There are no examples that describe the Earth as a sphere. But why should it? The ancient Hebrews were not well educated in world geography. For them to make such an error is understandable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

stratigraphy and radiometric dating, okay.

So do you agree with this?

That Stratigraphy dating is based on rock layers.

And radiometric dating is based on known rates of radioactive decay?

And as I like to remind evolutionists those are both assumptions. You don't know if the decay rate has always been the same nor were you there to see those rock layers being laid down. You have assumed these things are true and that they have always been this way since the beginning of the world. You then take those assumptions and use them to date the raindrops. If your assumptions about the rocks or radioactive isotopes are wrong this in turn makes the dates wrong.

known rates of radioactive decay can only can be tested on the current world, not the past world. If the decay rate changed at either the fall or flood or both, then current decay rates are only good for relatively young items.

First of all asking a evolutionary biologist about stratigraphy or radiometric dating would be kind of weird, stratigraphy is geology for starters.

Radioactive decay rates are properties of nuclei derived from the properties of the nuclear forces. The basic forces of nature have been measured to be stable for longer than the age of the Earth (i.e., more than 4.5 billion years). Decay rates aren't an issue.

 

[Fervent]

Sorry scripture is not "proof". It is not even evidence. Scripture is just the claim. I could write something down and I could claim that it was "proof".

I would suggest that you learn what is and what is not evidence. It won't take long.

Depends what premises we're arguing from. Most of these kinds of conversations just end up in back and forth jabs because we're operating on different premises, and different types of evidence hold different weight. Scripture is evidence to someone who affirms the premise that God has chosen to reveal Himself through the word, empirical data is convincing to someone who upholds the premise that there are fixed laws that govern the universe. So why do you simply demand we adopt your premises when we are discussing where the evidence lies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd also need to multiply each generation by the number of individuals in that generation. Then multiply that again by the average number of transmissible positive mutations in each individual. The end result would be the total number of positive and neutral mutations since life began. Bear in mind also that the change caused by a particular mutation may be useful today but useless tomorrow.

I don't know what the number might be but I can tell you it's very, very,very,very,very >>> big.

OB

That applies once sexual reproduction evolved. Of course for most of the history of life it appears that there was no sexual reproduction and evolution proceeded at a snail's pace compared to since sexual reproduction came about. Horizontal gene transfer would have still probably have existed, but that seems to be far slower than sexual reproduction.

I do not think that there is a problem either. I simply do not know enough to describe how many new genes would have arisen before sexual reproduction. I am sure that others can.

 

[Fervent]

Personally no. But other scholars of Hebrew do give the definitions that I alluded to. And that is just one example. There are no examples that describe the Earth as a sphere. But why should it? The ancient Hebrews were not well educated in world geography. For them to make such an error is understandable.

Most of the time when descriptions are offered they're not intended to be literal(though whether the Hebrew word refers to both spherical and flat circles is not completely certain so I question why you pick scholars that agree with your position while ignoring ones that affirm the opposite as the more authoritative) but to convey God's stature in comparison to the known world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's almost as if the discussion generated by the thread answers the question in the affirmative more than any debate directly about the question ever could.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends what premises we're arguing from. Most of these kinds of conversations just end up in back and forth jabs because we're operating on different premises, and different types of evidence hold different weight. Scripture is evidence to someone who affirms the premise that God has chosen to reveal Himself through the word, empirical data is convincing to someone who upholds the premise that there are fixed laws that govern the universe. So why do you simply demand we adopt your premises when we are discussing where the evidence lies?

Since the claims of scripture are the topic of debate they cannot be considered reliable evidence. To be considered that believers would have to show that they are reliable and no one has ever been able to do that. What you are proposing is circular reasoning. Which is a logical fallacy.

 

[coffee4u]

Again, I don't want details. You said there were different laws. It seems (not unsurprisingly) that you wouldn't know if there actually were or if there were, what they might have been. All you are going by is a literal reading of scripture and then saying 'Well, things were different back then'.

That doesn't carry a lot of weight, I'm afraid. How am I to treat it seriously?

You don't believe in God or scripture so you are hardly going to take anything to do with it seriously. But again I will play.

Like I said we have a snap shot from scripture about certain changes that occurred at the fall-flood and Tower of babel. This does not mean it was all of the changes, just the ones that God pointed out because as I said scripture is not a book about science, its a book about truth.

Before the fall there was no death.

Death meaning creatures with a soul and life blood, that I apparently have to repeat every time to prevent someone jumping in with nonsense about plants being chewed and bugs being steeped on. Surely our model is not so hard that you all can't remember some of the basic facts.

Sin brought in death. Only man can sin. This happened shortly after creation.
Man was created from the ground and brought to life by God. Already we have a vastly different world set up going on.

The fall changed the biology and behaviors of animals, corrupting them from their original purpose. Many herbivores became carnivores, many helpful parasites became destroying parasites.
The fall changed the plants, again corrupting them and changing them. Thorns and thistles came with the curse.

The flood caused the vapour canopy to fall down, it also caused an ice age and a permanent change in climate and changed the amount of Cosmic Rays reaching the earth.

These are the type of changes that I am talking about.