Bible and science?

nolidad said:

Isn't it also interesting that our space program discovered that if you do not enter at just the right angle- you will bounce off the upper atmosphere and be launched into space again! HHMMM!!??

Click to expand...

No. Depends on lots of things. You have to be going at just the right speed and angle. Otherwise, you hit the atmosphere and burn. This is how all those meteors are observed. They didn't hit at just the right angle.

We cannot say for sure water the water above the atmosphere, what form it took, nor do we know ho high it was placed in the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

There would be no water above the atmosphere. It would evaporate as soon as was placed there, and then diffuse off into space or fall back into the atmosphere, if it was concentrated enough.

If it was in the atmosphere, it would simply fall to the earth. And if it didn't, it would only have to be about 200 meters thick to darken the Earth and prevent photosynthesis. No way to make this story work.

nolidad said:

At near the 13 minute mark it shows a quote from the chair of a genetics dept showing mutations do noty advance life

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. I'm afraid you've a a victim of what I can only call deception: carefully selected pieces of science present in such a way that they give a totally misleading impression of their actual meaning.

Take the quotation from James Crow (I assume that's the one from the first video). If you look at it, Crow's quotation doesn't actually say anything at all about beneficial mutations. The quotation comes from an article in which Crow is talking about deleterious mutations. His point here is that most deleterious mutations have only weak effects, not strong ones; he's not assessing the frequency of beneficial mutations. A couple of lines earlier he notes that most mutations probably have no effect at all on fitness, something you would not guess from the quotation. Sure, beneficial mutations are much rarer than deleterious ones, but that's well known to evolutionary biologists and no problem for the theory. Here's Crow's actual judgment about evolution: "Evolution by natural selection, by survival and differential reproduction of the fittest, is about as firmly established as any broadly general scientific theory could imaginably be."

The Kimura distribution is even more flagrantly dishonest. Kimura worked out a model for the behavior of neutral and deleterious mutations; that distribution is part of his model. In developing the model, he explicitly dropped beneficial mutations from consideration, because they were not the subject he was trying to model. Here are Kimura's words: "In this formulation, we disregard beneficial mutations, and restrict our consideration only to deleterious and neutral mutations."

You're trusting people who are not being straight with you.

The Barbarian said:

The KJV translates Strong's H7549 in the following manner: firmament (17x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
   1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
      1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
      Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

The word "raqiya" is from the word "riqqua", meaning "beaten out", as a brass bowl would be beaten out from a sheet of metal. Most of the ancient world also thought of the sky as a solid dome. The Hebrews supposed there were gates or windows in it, which could be opened let water fall to earth from the great ocean above the firmament.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundreth year of the life of Noe in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were open:

Click to expand...

Well I can only tell you what Scriptures say- I know these definitions:

Genesis 1

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Heaven being:

Shamayim=
heaven, heavens, sky

1. visible heavens, sky
   
   1. as abode of the stars
      
      
   2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
      
2. Heaven (as the abode of God)
   
   
3. So obviously the raqiya we call the atmosphere was more. It could have included a barrier preflood- but that would havve been part of the shamayim,

Unless of course you believe the shamayim we call space was also considered a strectrhed out beaten out thin expanse as well and a solid

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

The early writers also knew outer space was different from the atmosphere:

Genesis 2: 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

notice the s that makes heaven plural???? Just like two raqiya shamyims were created in Genesis 1

sfs said:

Thank you for your response. I'm afraid you've a a victim of what I can only call deception: carefully selected pieces of science present in such a way that they give a totally misleading impression of their actual meaning.

Take the quotation from James Crow (I assume that's the one from the first video). If you look at it, Crow's quotation doesn't actually say anything at all about beneficial mutations. The quotation comes from an article in which Crow is talking about deleterious mutations. His point here is that most deleterious mutations have only weak effects, not strong ones; he's not assessing the frequency of beneficial mutations. A couple of lines earlier he notes that most mutations probably have no effect at all on fitness, something you would not guess from the quotation. Sure, beneficial mutations are much rarer than deleterious ones, but that's well known to evolutionary biologists and no problem for the theory. Here's Crow's actual judgment about evolution: "Evolution by natural selection, by survival and differential reproduction of the fittest, is about as firmly established as any broadly general scientific theory could imaginably be."

The Kimura distribution is even more flagrantly dishonest. Kimura worked out a model for the behavior of neutral and deleterious mutations; that distribution is part of his model. In developing the model, he explicitly dropped beneficial mutations from consideration, because they were not the subject he was trying to model. Here are Kimura's words: "In this formulation, we disregard beneficial mutations, and restrict our consideration only to deleterious and neutral mutations."

You're trusting people who are not being straight with you.

Click to expand...

Well then I challenge you to demonstrate one undesigned random mutation (IOW a rewrite of the genome and not merely preexisting info being expressed) that has benefitted any genus or species or individual creature. MUch less alter organs, change limbs, change eyes, etc.

KImura would know that mutations are over 99.9% harmful.. From barely harmful to toxic to its host. so the less than 1/10th of 1% is not worth talking about. Remember that Darwinian evolution demanda trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of "beneficial " mutations over 500 million years to take us from that primordial goo to modern man.

And yes I know that Crow, Kirschner and Kimura are all adherents to evolutionism. YOu miss the point! That what they said while being solid believers in evolutionism flies in the face of standar dogma of evolution!

The Barbarian said:

No. Depends on lots of things. You have to be going at just the right speed and angle. Otherwise, you hit the atmosphere and burn. This is how all those meteors are observed. They didn't hit at just the right angle.



There would be no water above the atmosphere. It would evaporate as soon as was placed there, and then diffuse off into space or fall back into the atmosphere, if it was concentrated enough.

If it was in the atmosphere, it would simply fall to the earth. And if it didn't, it would only have to be about 200 meters thick to darken the Earth and prevent photosynthesis. No way to make this story work.

Click to expand...

Well obviously in teh past it didn't so all you said, course then the preflood earth and atmosphere were very different from today! And you dismiss the miraculous which also plays a part!

nolidad said:

Well obviously in teh past it didn't so all you said, course then the preflood earth and atmosphere were very different from today! And you dismiss the miraculous which also plays a part!

Click to expand...

Also as for space craft- it was well established by NASA THEY WOULD BOUNCE OFF THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE AND BE HURLED BACK TO SPACE!

No. Depends on lots of things. You have to be going at just the right speed and angle. Otherwise, you hit the atmosphere and burn. This is how all those meteors are observed. They didn't hit at just the right angle.

There would be no water above the atmosphere. It would evaporate as soon as was placed there, and then diffuse off into space or fall back into the atmosphere, if it was concentrated enough.

If it was in the atmosphere, it would simply fall to the earth. And if it didn't, it would only have to be about 200 meters thick to darken the Earth and prevent photosynthesis. No way to make this story work.

nolidad said:

Well obviously in teh past it didn't

Click to expand...

All the evidence shows that it's always been this way.

so all you said, course then the preflood earth and atmosphere were very different from today!

Click to expand...

Nothing in the evidence shows that any changes in the atmosphere would change the laws of physics, which is what you'd need for your story to work.

And you dismiss the miraculous which also plays a part!

Click to expand...

If you're allowed to call in a non-scriptural miracle to save the flaws in your argument, then all stories are equally likely to be true.

nolidad said:

Also as for space craft- it was well established by NASA THEY WOULD BOUNCE OFF THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE AND BE HURLED BACK TO SPACE!

Click to expand...

Nope. Could be, if the speed, direction, and mass were just right. But mostly, objects hitting the Earth's atmosphere just burn up as they fall toward the Earth.

Morever, if unless the speed after skipping is very high, the object that skips will again be pulled down into the atmosphere, the way a skipping stone will repeatedly skip over water until it sinks. This can be used, as it was in some Mars landers, to reduce speed and heat on entry.

nolidad said:

Unless of course you believe the shamayim we call space was also considered a strectrhed out beaten out thin expanse as well and a solid

Click to expand...

That's the Hebrew take on it. Hence the solid sky with gates in it to let water fall through, in the flood story.

nolidad said:

Well then I challenge you to demonstrate one undesigned random mutation (IOW a rewrite of the genome and not merely preexisting info being expressed) that has benefitted any genus or species or individual creature.

Click to expand...

The three single-base mutations in the gene pfcrt that confer chloroquine resistance on Plasmodium falciparum. The mutation upstream of the gene LCT in humans that confers the ability to digest lactose as adults in most Europeans. An independent mutation with the same effect in East Africans, also upstream of LCT.

Seriously, anyone who tries to convince you that geneticists don't think beneficial mutations occur is flat-out lying to you. They are trivial to observe.

nolidad said:

KImura would know that mutations are over 99.9% harmful.. From barely harmful to toxic to its host.

Click to expand...

Um, no. Kimura's theory was that most mutations are neutral. Most mutations that have any effect on fitness are detrimental.

nolidad said:

so the less than 1/10th of 1% is not worth talking about.

Click to expand...

Completely incorrect. Evolution works just fine even if 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 mutations is beneficial.

nolidad said:

Remember that Darwinian evolution demanda trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of "beneficial " mutations over 500 million years to take us from that primordial goo to modern man.

Click to expand...

Please show your math. Even better, take a look at the ballpark numbers I gave in post #232 and tell me why they preclude evolution.

nolidad said:

And yes I know that Crow, Kirschner and Kimura are all adherents to evolutionism. YOu miss the point! That what they said while being solid believers in evolutionism flies in the face of standar dogma of evolution!

Click to expand...

And you miss my point: the speaker was lying to you about what they said.

The Barbarian said:

Nope. Could be, if the speed, direction, and mass were just right. But mostly, objects hitting the Earth's atmosphere just burn up as they fall toward the Earth.

Morever, if unless the speed after skipping is very high, the object that skips will again be pulled down into the atmosphere, the way a skipping stone will repeatedly skip over water until it sinks. This can be used, as it was in some Mars landers, to reduce speed and heat on entry.

Click to expand...

If the angle is too high they enter and burn- if the angle is too low- they skip off and are hurled into space!

As for Mars- remember it has a different atmosphere than us!

sfs said:

The three single-base mutations in the gene pfcrt that confer chloroquine resistance on Plasmodium falciparum. The mutation upstream of the gene LCT in humans that confers the ability to digest lactose as adults in most Europeans. An independent mutation with the same effect in East Africans, also upstream of LCT.

Seriously, anyone who tries to convince you that geneticists don't think beneficial mutations occur is flat-out lying to you. They are trivial to observe.

Um, no. Kimura's theory was that most mutations are neutral. Most mutations that have any effect on fitness are detrimental.

Completely incorrect. Evolution works just fine even if 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 mutations is beneficial.

Please show your math. Even better, take a look at the ballpark numbers I gave in post #232 and tell me why they preclude evolution.

And you miss my point: the speaker was lying to you about what they said.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but developing resistance is a built in code in nearly all living creatures! It may require an alteration in the genome- but that is by directed message.

Just like when people develop a resistance say to measles- it is not a mutation but an normal result of our immune system- same with bacteria and viruses- they also have rudimentary immune systems.

Lactose tolerance is not a mutation, but a simple protein staying in the "on" position. And this tolerance is in the countries and peoples that are highly dependent on dairy products. It could very well be that the continued use of dairy after weaning just simply kept the protein active!

Look at Kimuras chart again- the line is all on the negative side! Some are nearly benign, But like Kirschner wrote all mutation reduce the viablility or reproductive vitality of species!

NO they the speakers were not lying- for they all acknowledged they were evolutionists and believed in evolution! They just pointed out their remarkable comments or work in light of their belief system!

Darwinian Evolution works fine in the imagination! But not int eh real world. We can empirically show a change in genus, family order ,m phyla or kingdom by the method evolutionism demands- random unplanned mutations preserved via natural selection building up greater complexity and changing fish to amphib, raptor to bird etc.

The Barbarian said:

That's the Hebrew take on it. Hence the solid sky with gates in it to let water fall through, in the flood story.

Click to expand...

Well if you can deal with idioms and metaphors......

I THINK Noah would recognize spotty downpours due to windows and torrential rains like sluice gates (more accurate translation BTW) being flung open! Though it had never rained prior to this I think Noah would recognize the difference!

The Barbarian said:

That's the Hebrew take on it. Hence the solid sky with gates in it to let water fall through, in the flood story.

Click to expand...

Well find me an ancient writing from Hebrew that agrees and not some scholar millenia removed casting his opinion on what the Hebrews believed based on surrounding pagan cultures believed.

The Barbarian said:

No. Depends on lots of things. You have to be going at just the right speed and angle. Otherwise, you hit the atmosphere and burn. This is how all those meteors are observed. They didn't hit at just the right angle.

There would be no water above the atmosphere. It would evaporate as soon as was placed there, and then diffuse off into space or fall back into the atmosphere, if it was concentrated enough.

If it was in the atmosphere, it would simply fall to the earth. And if it didn't, it would only have to be about 200 meters thick to darken the Earth and prevent photosynthesis. No way to make this story work.




All the evidence shows that it's always been this way.



Nothing in the evidence shows that any changes in the atmosphere would change the laws of physics, which is what you'd need for your story to work.



If you're allowed to call in a non-scriptural miracle to save the flaws in your argument, then all stories are equally likely to be true.

Click to expand...

Well God has worked many many miracles! The supernatural acting upon the natural will never fully be understood by scientific inquiry. That is why sceptics and unbelievers alike reject Jesus rising from the dead- because it is an act that cannot be defined by science!

Because they reject an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent God they make up their owen belief system.

Teh Bib Bang is scientifically impossible.

Darwinian Evolution is scientifically impossible- but teh secularists promote these untestable philosophies as a replace ment for God doing what He did!

As of now yes, water would not hold well- the entire precipation cycle was introduced! Prior to the rain and fountains destroying the earth- we just do not know things like barametric pressure, atomospheric pressure etc.etc. ICR has done some amazing researh ii these areas ansd have come up with some pretty interesting hypotheses, but that is as far it can go for all done out of the recorded past cannotbe proven empirically.

Barbarian:

What amazes me is how so many people are so willing to reject the written words of people who were there and able to record events and conversations, but yet accept the word of people called scientists who were not here and only take superficial events and extrapolate backwards.

Examplew -- we see sp[eciation and variation within species- so they take these minor changes that do not change say mouse into something other than a mouse and come up with "goo to you by way of the zoo".

Fossils do not suppor their hypotheses. All fossils do is show that a critter with that structure once lived! all else is just speculation and supposition!

Or even NOah- we see what happens now and skeptics say that flood could never happen because what they see today! Because they refuse to accept a God who can and does intervene in His creation they reject teh miraculous!

nolidad said:

Well God has worked many many miracles!

Click to expand...

But when you start dreaming up miracles to cover the flaws in your argument, you've departed from scripture and are no making up your own.

Teh Bib Bang is scientifically impossible.

Click to expand...

Show us that. With your numbers.

Darwinian Evolution is scientifically impossible

Click to expand...

It's directly observed. I'm thinking you don't even know Darwin's five points, do you?

but teh secularists promote these untestable philosophies as a replace ment for God doing what He did!

Click to expand...

Someone's taken advantage of your trust in them. Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things.

As of now yes, water would not hold well- the entire precipation cycle was introduced! Prior to the rain and fountains destroying the earth- we just do not know things like barametric pressure, atomospheric pressure etc.etc. ICR has done some amazing researh ii these areas ansd have come up with some pretty interesting hypotheses, but that is as far it can go for all done out of the recorded past cannotbe proven empirically.

Click to expand...

Tossing out more unscriptural miracles to cover your errors, isn't going help you, now.

The Barbarian said:

But when you start dreaming up miracles to cover the flaws in your argument, you've departed from scripture and are no making up your own.



Show us that. With your numbers.



It's directly observed. I'm thinking you don't even know Darwin's five points, do you?



Someone's taken advantage of your trust in them. Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things.



Tossing out more unscriptural miracles to cover your errors, isn't going help you, now.

Click to expand...

Darwinian evolution directly observed? Okay- show one genus that changed to another or family, or phyla or order!

What miracles have I dreamed up? Easy to accuse- hard to prove.
I do not need numbers to prove the big bvang impossible I just need the 2 laws of thermodynamics. The two majority accepted CONSENSUS as to how the universe has started are these, the universe was an eternal hyper dense singulairty that exploded and created the universe or that nothing existed and there was some sort of quantum flux that caused nothing to explode to create everything!

Point one defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics! Remember the universe is a closed system and if that hyper dense whatever existed for all eternity- then it would have long gone to a 100% entropic state and not have enough energy for even a little cosmic fart!

Point 2. If nothing existed- then it denies the first law of thermodynamics where matter and energy always =100% So 0 cannot create 100%.

As fort math formulas- Just remember formulae will always give a correct answer assuming no error in calculations) but that does not mean it is correct as to what goes on in the real universe!

Darwin created his own God when he tossed out how God called every living kind into existence in but a few days!

I do not create my own miracles.
God seperated the waters above fromthe waters below- then at one point in time he ordered the waters above and the great deeps to pour out upon the earth.

Now I can give you lots of sound science as to how it MIGHT have happened, but they can only remain mights, for God decided to not write a research paper as to how He caused it all to happen.

nolidad said:

Sorry, but developing resistance is a built in code in nearly all living creatures!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a fantasy. You just made it up on the spot, didn't you? Adding an exclamation point doesn't make something true, you know. I'll tell you what -- I'll give you a hundred bucks if you can point to the scientific papers that identify this built-in code that malaria parasites use to modify their own genomes. Deal?

You might note that Michael Behe, prominent proponent of intelligent design, points specifically to these mutations as the limit of what unguided mutations can accomplish.

nolidad said:

Just like when people develop a resistance say to measles- it is not a mutation but an normal result of our immune system

Click to expand...

And do you know what the specific part of the immune system is called that lets people develop resistance to measles? It has a name: "somatic hypermutation". You develop resistance by the mechanism you say doesn't exist.

Why are you doing this -- just making up stuff? Scientists spend their lives learning about how things like mutation work, and you think you can refute it all just by pretending that you know how viruses and immune systems work? I just don't get this attitude.

nolidad said:

Lactose tolerance is not a mutation, but a simple protein staying in the "on" position.

Click to expand...

Once again, your statement is a simple falsehood. Yes, a protein stays in the on position -- because of a mutation, a mutation near the gene that codes for lactase. Here's a bit from one of the many papers on the subject: " Some humans, however, continue to produce lactase throughout adulthood, a trait known as lactase persistence. In European populations, a single mutation (−13910*T) explains the distribution of the phenotype, whereas several mutations are associated with it in Africa and the Middle East." Does it bother you that nearly every statement you make about science is false?

nolidad said:

Look at Kimuras chart again- the line is all on the negative side! Some are nearly benign

Click to expand...

And look at what Kimura said he was doing: he said he was going to ignore everything that would be on the right side of the chart.

nolidad said:

Darwinian evolution directly observed? Okay- show one genus that changed to another or family, or phyla or order!

Click to expand...

And here, you demonstrate you don't know what Darwinian evolution is. However, the ICR and AIG both acknowledge the fact of speciation and even new families. I discussed this with John Woodmorappe, (ICR's Ark Feasibility Study) and he thought the limit of evolution was new families.

But you've repeatedly refused to tell us what you think "Darwinian evolution" means. What do you think the five points of Darwinian theory are?

What miracles have I dreamed up?

Click to expand...

Stuff like this:

"As of now yes, water would not hold well- the entire precipation cycle was introduced! Prior to the rain and fountains destroying the earth- we just do not know things like barametric pressure, atomospheric pressure etc.etc. ICR has done some amazing researh ii these areas ansd have come up with some pretty interesting hypotheses, but that is as far it can go for all done out of the recorded past cannotbe proven empirically."

Click to expand...

If you can just insert a miracle you dreamed up, to cover the flaws in your thinking, then any story works.

I do not need numbers to prove the big bvang impossible I just need the 2 laws of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

I think you got it wrong during your training. It's probably the "2nd law of thermodynamics"; there are more than two laws of thermodynamics.

And the laws are mathematical. So if you don't have numbers, you don't have anything.

The two majority accepted CONSENSUS as to how the universe has started are these,

Click to expand...

Thermodynamics is not about the origin of the universe, which is not accessible to science. It can only consider what happened after the origin.

So we have a universe. Now use your knowledge of thermodynamics to prove evolution is impossible.

Point 2. If nothing existed- then it denies the first law of thermodynamics where matter and energy always =100%

Click to expand...

100% of what?

So 0 cannot create 100%.

Click to expand...

Virtual particles do that continuously. It's observable.

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

So out of the quantum vacuum, a particle and antiparticle can appear, and then destroy each other, returning to 0.

As fort math formulas- Just remember formulae will always give a correct answer assuming no error in calculations) but that does not mean it is correct as to what goes on in the real universe!

Click to expand...

If so, then your laws of thermodynamics are useless. Is that what you want to tell us?

Darwin created his own God when he tossed out how God called every living kind into existence in but a few days!

Click to expand...

Darwin never commented on how long it took. He merely asserted that the Creator made the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1879

I do not create my own miracles.

Click to expand...

So far, you've supposed all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to cover problems in your ideas.[/quote]