What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Resha Caner]

Five tales on the importance of tight editing, a vital partner to Executive Summaries.

• I had a boss who would read no document longer than one page.
• A colleague submitted her first engineering report to her boss who read it then said, "That's good, now say the same thing in half the number of words." She wrestled with the document and eventually returned with it halved. "That's good, now go away and write it in half the number of words." That was also achieved, though the third attempt didn't quite hit target. The final product was less than 20% of the original and nothing of importance was lost.
• Mark Twain famously apologised to a friend for writing an eight page letter. "I intended to write you a two page letter, but I didn't have time."
• The best book review I ever read was this. The Art of Brevity. "Excellent".
• Another of my bosses asked me for a summary of a course I had developed on rock mechanics in the drilling industry. "Rocks are hard and when you hit them they break."

I've heard similar anecdotes that reference Winston Churchill. In one, an interviewer asks how long it takes him to write a 5 minute speech, and Churchill replies, "Weeks". Stunned the reporter then wonders about longer speeches, and asks how long it takes him to write a 15 minute speech. "Oh, a few days," Churchill replies. Confused, the reporter asks how long an hour speech takes. Churchill's reply, "I'm ready now."

With respect to your summary about rocks, upon the departure of an expert in journal bearings, I asked if he could provide any guidance to those who would follow in his stead. He replied, "I've learned bearings are incredibly robust and can take a lot of abuse. I've also learned bearings are incredibly fragile, and the slightest error destroys them."

 

[Ophiolite]

I've heard similar anecdotes that reference Winston Churchill. In one, an interviewer asks how long it takes him to write a 5 minute speech, and Churchill replies, "Weeks". Stunned the reporter then wonders about longer speeches, and asks how long it takes him to write a 15 minute speech. "Oh, a few days," Churchill replies. Confused, the reporter asks how long an hour speech takes. Churchill's reply, "I'm ready now."

So true! At the drop of a hat I could (and did) deliver two or three day talks on technical matters. Condensing them, effectively, to an hour or so took me years.

With respect to your summary about rocks, upon the departure of an expert in journal bearings, I asked if he could provide any guidance to those who would follow in his stead. He replied, "I've learned bearings are incredibly robust and can take a lot of abuse. I've also learned bearings are incredibly fragile, and the slightest error destroys them."

Brilliant! Since the primary tool used to break rocks in the oil and gas industry was, until the last couple of decades, the roller cone drill bit, many of which used journal bearings, I am intimately familiar with the beasts and those remarks resonate very strongly with me.

 

[MIDutch]

What story? What are you talking about? The Bible? The Bible is a collection stories. The very word we call it by, "Bible," means "library."

And it was written by a bunch of people at different times.

Also, there were a lot of various parts of the story that weren't even included in the final draft.

 

[GodsGrace101]

It was found.

Pitabread....
I was watching this before.
Not every scientist, as I've said, agrees with you and some of the others here.

I may not know too much about science, but others do.
And I know with which side I agree.

much more stuff like this that makes a lot of sense.

 

[pitabread]

Pitabread....
I was watching this before.
Not every scientist, as I've said, agrees with you and some of the others here.

I may not know too much about science, but others do.
And I know with which side I agree.

Oh, I'm well familiar with the Intelligent Design movement and their various arguments. I've read a lot of their literature, including Meyer's latest book not too long ago.

However, the ID propositions for trying to detect design have not panned out. For example, Behe's formulation for irreducible complexity does not actually preclude evolution. It's possible for evolution to produce irreducibly complex biological structures.

There is a reason their ideas haven't been adopted in the biological sciences; their ideas have not been scientifically validated.

Which is the entire premise of this thread.

 

[Lee Stuvmen]

What story? What are you talking about? The Bible? The Bible is a collection stories. The very word we call it by, "Bible," means "library."

I am surprised that someone as intelligent and informed as you appear to be would ask "What Story"?

Can anyone name one book, whether on mathematics, or science, history, or even fiction that does not tell a story?

But it would appear that his collection of "stories" contained within each individual "book" of Scripture tells a GREATER SINGULAR cohesive story.

The point of my post was this;
Is what is written in Scripture absolute truth? That is the question.

And if by one's own measure, the truthfulness of any verse of Scripture can be called into question, then by that standard, the truthfulness of every verse of Scripture must also be called into question.

Thus rendering the quotation of Scripture by any human a complete and total waste of time.

But if it were so, that quoting Scripture had no merit, then why would even Satan himself "quote Scripture"?

MATTHEW 4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

 

[pitabread]

Essentially, yes.

Are you familiar with horizontal gene transfer in biological organisms?

 

[solid_core]

This collection of "stories" contained within each individual "book" of Scripture tells a cohesive story.

Cohesive in what meaning?

That there is only one true God, creator of everything, who created humans as His special creation, who cares about us, about our thoughts, about our deeds etc.?

Yes, Bible is theologically cohesive.

Scientifically? No, there are even logical discrepancies between Gen 1 and Gen 2, they were different stories (Gen 2 is probably older story than Gen 1) and Jews better put them together than to risk to lose one of them.

The point of my post was this;
Is what is written in Scripture absolute truth? That is the question.

Quite a loaded question, when we take into consideration, that Scriptures are library of various texts, from mythological, through poetic and historic to dogmatic.

Also there is the human part in Scriptures - language, culture and cosmology of writers.

Also, there are textual problems - differences between copies.

Also, there are problems with proper translation, because many texts are ambiguous, for example prophecies.

So the answer is not so simple and we must be careful or else we will cut ourselves with a wrong use of the Bible.

 

[Lee Stuvmen]

Cohesive in what meaning?

That there is one God, creator of everything, who created humans as His special creation, who cares about us, about our sins etc?

Yes, Bible is theologically cohesive.

Scientifically? No, there are even logical discrepancies between Gen 1 and Gen 2, they were different stories (Gen 2 is probably older story than Gen 1) and Jews better put them together than to risk to lose one of them.




Quite a loaded question, when we take into consideration, that Scriptures are library of various texts, from mythological, through poetic and historic to dogmatic.

Also there is the human part in Scriptures - language and worldview of writers.

Also, there are textual problems - differences between copies.

Also, there are problems with proper translation, because many texts are ambiguous, for example prophecies.

So the answer is not so simple and we must be careful or else we will cut ourselves with a wrong use of the Bible.

ALL VALID POINTS.

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you familiar with horizontal gene transfer in biological organisms?

Yes. Again, I'm not a biologist, but I am aware of the mechanism, and it was considered in my model.

 

[pitabread]

Yes. Again, I'm not a biologist, but I am aware of the mechanism, and it was considered in my model.

Then you must be aware this a well-studied phenomenon in biology.

I guess I'm not sure what your model is proposing that is different relative to what is already known?

 

[Strathos]

Can anyone name one book, whether on mathematics, or science, history, or even fiction that does not tell a story?

A phone book?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've heard similar anecdotes that reference Winston Churchill. In one, an interviewer asks how long it takes him to write a 5 minute speech, and Churchill replies, "Weeks". Stunned the reporter then wonders about longer speeches, and asks how long it takes him to write a 15 minute speech. "Oh, a few days," Churchill replies. Confused, the reporter asks how long an hour speech takes. Churchill's reply, "I'm ready now."

I heard it was Lincoln, but the reality seems to be otherwise:

If I Am To Speak Ten Minutes, I Need a Week for Preparation; If an Hour, I Am Ready Now – Quote Investigator

 

[Lee Stuvmen]

Cohesive in what meaning?

That there is only one true God, creator of everything, who created humans as His special creation, who cares about us, about our thoughts, about our deeds etc.?

Yes, Bible is theologically cohesive.

Scientifically? No, there are even logical discrepancies between Gen 1 and Gen 2, they were different stories (Gen 2 is probably older story than Gen 1) and Jews better put them together than to risk to lose one of them.



Quite a loaded question, when we take into consideration, that Scriptures are library of various texts, from mythological, through poetic and historic to dogmatic.

Also there is the human part in Scriptures - language, culture and cosmology of writers.

Also, there are textual problems - differences between copies.

Also, there are problems with proper translation, because many texts are ambiguous, for example prophecies.

So the answer is not so simple and we must be careful or else we will cut ourselves with a wrong use of the Bible.

As a Scientist, one of the greatest tools mankind has been afforded is mathematics. Without mathematics, there would have been no space program.

In mathematics is truth; (1 + 1 = 2), but also the ability to test for truthfulness. (2 - 1 = 1)
Without this ability to test, truth of mathematics cannot be proven.


Can I explain how a planet that according to Scripture is 6000 years old, has sedimentary rocks that appear to be older than that? No I can't!

Can I explain how star light that has taken thousands of light years to travel to our eyes, has done so in 6000 years? No I can't!

But, AS A SCIENTIST, if one cannot find error in a mathematical equation, then there is a great likelihood that equation is truth.

As pertaining to the title of this thread, Creationist MUST PROVE that there is falsehood within the original Hebrew texts. (Old and New Testaments)

I tell you in all truth that for the last 20 years, I have zealously endeavored to find fault within the written text, to test. To root out and expose error contained within those texts.

But as Pontius Pilate said of Jesus;
Luke 23
4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

As would any good Scientist, I have meticulously recorded my 20 years of diligent research, to be scrutinized by my peers for error. But it is easier for my peers to embrace theories, than test for truth.
www.sevenheadedscarletbeast.blogspot.com

 

[Resha Caner]

I heard it was Lincoln, but the reality seems to be otherwise:

Yes. I'm sure if one were from India, one would hear that Gandhi had said it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then you must be aware this a well-studied phenomenon in biology.

I guess I'm not sure what your model is proposing that is different relative to what is already known?

Do you like short or long explanations (more or less than 25 words)? I'll start with the short one. Current biology would hold that had not a long sequence of species preceded us, homo sapiens would never have existed. In it's simplest, least controversial form (at least within the biology world), my model would suggest not all of those preceding species were necessary. A few of them could have been leap-frogged - maybe even came after homosapiens rather than before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might have summarized what you think the errors are, but explaining them is something quite different. As it stands, statements like "variation occurs automatically" don't make sense to me. It sounds as if you are saying a system can change it's state without any energy transfer, which would be nonsense - magic. It also sounds as if you're saying no state change would produce a larger energy transfer than any possible state change - also nonsense.

Rats, lost a post when the site was being a bit glitchy earlier.

Okay, your post tells me that you do not understand variation. One of the main sources of variation is mutations that arise through reproduction. You have on the order of 100 mutations in the genome that you inherited from your parents. Most do nothing. In fact it is possible for all of them to be totally benign, neither advantageous or disadvantageous. Those that have an effect tend to be very small ones. If they are positive changes they increase the odds of being passed on. Negative ones reduce that possibility. These are all rather basic ideas that I will gladly support if needed. And I am sure that you know that mutations that have a strong effect are almost always negative mutations. It would actually take energy to prevent these variations. That is why I said that variation appears naturally.

As to a "system changing". You appear to be talking about an accumulation of changes that causes a noticeable difference. Those changes that are finally noticed are merely the accumulated small changes that were positive which are all but indiscernible when the mutations that caused them first appeared. Also most traits arise by the slow change of existing "systems". They do not appear full blown. And to understand this it helps to understand what a Vestigial Organ is. They are not the strawman version that creationists give of an organ that has lost all function. That does not tend to happen. A vestigial organ is an organ that has lost much of its original function. It often picks up a secondary function in the meantime. For example the stapes bone is technically a vestigial organ since it does not do a job that it had in the past. And the evolution of the mammalian ear is well known and can be traced through the fossil record.

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia

The idea of sudden changes does not tend to occur very often at all. I see that @pitabread brought up horizontal gene transfer. That is an example of variation that is sudden, but those genes had to arise by a slow process themselves. And they tend to occur mostly in single celled life. For multicellular life it is merely an accumulation of changes that occurred randomly and were put through the sieve of natural selection.

There is of course energy involved in growing, selection and reproduction. What I objected to is your idea that variation, the one process that occurs naturally and would take energy to prevent would ever stop.

Any questions? Just one at a time please since this is getting to be a more complex idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a Scientist, one of the greatest tools mankind has been afforded is mathematics. Without mathematics, there would have been no space program.

In mathematics is truth; (1 + 1 = 2), but also the ability to test for truthfulness. (2 - 1 = 1)
Without this ability to test, truth of mathematics cannot be proven.


Can I explain how a planet that according to Scripture is 6000 years old, has sedimentary rocks that appear to be older than that? No I can't!

Can I explain how star light that has taken thousands of light years to travel to our eyes, has done so in 6000 years? No I can't!

But, AS A SCIENTIST, if one cannot find error in a mathematical equation, then there is a great likelihood that equation is truth.

As pertaining to the title of this thread, Creationist MUST PROVE that there is falsehood within the original Hebrew texts. (Old and New Testaments)

I tell you in all truth that for the last 20 years, I have zealously endeavored to find fault within the written text, to test. To root out and expose error contained within those texts.

But as Pontius Pilate said of Jesus;
Luke 23
4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

As would any good Scientist, I have meticulously recorded my 20 years of diligent research, to be scrutinized by my peers for error. But it is easier for my peers to embrace theories, than test for truth.
www.sevenheadedscarletbeast.blogspot.com

You are conflating two very different areas of thought. Mathematics is an abstract tool that can be applied to various areas. In math there absolute proofs of concept. In fact the word "proof" in that sense only applies to mathematics. Science is a method of solving problems applying the scientific method. One cannot absolutely prove an idea. At best the legal concept of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" applies. But if one accepts such concepts as the germ theory of disease and gravity by the same standards one should accept the theory of evolution. And theories are constantly tested for "truth". The theory of evolution has been more thoroughly tested than any belief of yours. To try to put down scientists for "embracing theories" is an improper attack on them that a Christian should not do. All too often I see creationists break the Ninth Commandment. Not because they are lying. That Commandment covers more than that, but because they state opinions as fact about others that are clearly false. It is technically a bearing of false witness against their neighbor. One needs to be very careful about what says about others. If it cannot be supported with reasonable evidence then one is far too likely to have broken that commandment when one makes such sweeping comments.

 

[pitabread]

Current biology would hold that had not a long sequence of species preceded us, homo sapiens would never have existed. In it's simplest, least controversial form (at least within the biology world), my model would suggest not all of those preceding species were necessary. A few of them could have been leap-frogged - maybe even came after homosapiens rather than before.

The evolutionary history of Earth isn't mandated by necessity; it's simply a description of what already happened. The reason biologists point to a series of preceding species over ~4 billion years is because that is what happened.

As a process, evolution does not have a preordained goal to arrive at specific species.

 

[solid_core]

Can I explain how a planet that according to Scripture is 6000 years old, has sedimentary rocks that appear to be older than that? No I can't!

Bible does not say that the planet is 6000 years old. Bible, actually, have no idea what a planet is. Ancient Jews knew only land and seas around it. They had no idea about continents etc.

I tell you in all truth that for the last 20 years, I have zealously endeavored to find fault within the written text, to test. To root out and expose error contained within those texts.

Not sure about your zeal to find a fault or how you define a fault, but there are many mythological topics in the Bible we do not consider to be literally true, for example that God will kill leviathan who lives in seas.

Or that we think in our kidneys.