What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Unless it turns out to be the truth.

And science is supposed to be open to all theories....

Actually all hypotheses. Too bad that creationists are too afraid to form one.

And "the truth" appears to be that we are apes. There is no scientific evidence contrary to that belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right.
IOW,,,the existence of aliens would NOT answer the question of how life got started or how God got started. (of course, I believe God ALWAYS existed).

Fine. I can equally well claim that the aliens always existed.

I won't go back to check...but I believe I said that each culture DOES see God in a different way.
What I said is that they are all worshipping the same God...THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. HOW one wishes to worship Him does depend on that particular culture.
God can be called by different names...but it's still only one God.

I think you missed my point - when all the gods of history are reportedly so amazingly different and contradictory, the only way they could all be referring to the same god is if they're all responding to some simple fundamentals that don't reflect those differences. IOW, ideas of a god or gods being good or bad, loving or hateful, cruel or kind, interested or disinterested, roughly human in thinking or entirely alien, and so-on; those differences must all just be local cultural projections onto those simple fundamentals (e.g. transcendence, supernatural powers).

The alternative is that a few common concepts (or just one) of god are correct and the others are wrong.

But don't you find it interesting that every culture has believed in some type of god...even cultures far away from each other (in distance)?

The variety of god beliefs is interesting, but that cultures have them isn't remarkable. We're primed to view and interpret the world, particularly unexplained events, in terms of agency and/or teleology, from simple superstition to sophisticated religious beliefs. There are good evolutionary and socio-cultural reasons for why we do this - and people still do it all the time; it's largely how we relate to the world.

God beliefs are effective means of promoting the consolidation, unity, and control of large, settled states, so become prominent features of successful, growing agricultural societies and their hierarchies. What god, or the gods, decree isn't open to debate, and a powerful, invisible, all-seeing, all-knowing entity is a better and cheaper deterrent than police, drones, and CCTV

 

[Speedwell]

Unless it turns out to be the truth.

And science is supposed to be open to all theories....

Not possible. The existence of God and His authorship of our being are unfalsifiable propositions which nothing science can discover will disprove. To tell children that the theory of evolution denies that they are creatures of God is a lie and is known to be a lie by the creationists who tell it. It is hateful and disgusting.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think I mis-spoke of that's what you understood about there not being a first cause.

I'll try to be more careful:
If the universe was caused by something...
then that something could not have had a cause,,,it was uncaused...God is uncaused.

If God was caused...then THAT CAUSE would have had to have no cause.

Somehow what CAUSED EVERYTHING could not have itself had a cause.

The issue here is secretly begging the question - your argument assumes God. You can legitimately argue that there must be a first cause (assuming you can find a valid argument - good luck with that); but if you want to give it specific attributes beyond the simple abstraction of 'first cause', you must find an argument for doing that too.

Simply asserting that some primaeval serpent, or turtle, or giant bird, or swirling chaos, or man-like superbeing, or all-encompassing ocean, or whatever, was the uncaused cause of all that followed is just unsupported assertion.

So, if you can claim that 'an unexplained, ill-defined, unevidenced agency called 'God' can exist without cause - with no supporting evidence or argument, is a valid premise, then I can claim, with no less validity, and greater parsimony, that the universe itself - for which we have good evidence and require no supporting argument - can be uncaused.

JFYI, the old argument that everything in the universe is caused, therefore the universe itself must be caused, is fallacious in two ways - it's a fallacy of composition in as much as the whole need not have the properties and attributes of its parts, and it's a fallacy of physics, in that causality is an emergent macro-scale property of the constituents of the universe; a statistical property dependent on the entropic arrow of time (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

IOW, you don't need to invent mystical uncaused causes, let alone adorn them with human attributes and superhuman powers.

What would be a 3rd choice?
Mine were:
1. God created everything.
2. The universe came from nothing.

As to your logical reasoning that if God could come from nothing, then the universe could also come from nothing...

Your comment does not correspond to the understanding of what GOD is. God has no cause and has always existed. This can be believed or not...but cannot be explained.

That's the point (as above) - if you can assert that God has no cause and has always existed, I can assert (as a third choice) that the universe has no cause and has always existed - and without introducing arbitrary entities for which there is no evidence.

We are still searching for HOW the BB happened and HOW life began (not evolved).

Indeed - I think we're making more progress on life than on the BB - which is understandable. When all questions are answered, science will be at an end. There will always be unanswerable questions, and inventing arbitrary entities as 'backstop' answers will always be second to admitting we just don't know.

It's not semantic pedantry FB....
In theology, God is NOT part of everything He made.
God is OUTSIDE of His creation.
The watchmaker is not part of the watch, but is outside of it.

OK, so it was sloppy language; you said 'everything', when you meant 'everything except God', or 'everything that God made'. The first is special pleading, the second is begging the question; i.e. the original assertion is logically fallacious.

What I was saying is that some religions see God in everything...this is pantheism. It is not understood as the God that is almighty, sovereign and is accepted by different religions. In a sense God IS in everything, but this is a nuance that cannot be discussed with a non-believer.

I'm not sure what you are saying here - either it is, as you said, the same god - or it isn't. The implication that 'only believers can understand' is not an argument, but an admission that you don't have a rational argument.

If there's anything you'd like me to expand on or explain, I'd be happy to try. If you can find reasonable counter-arguments or rebuttals to what I've posted, I'd be interested to hear them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The church isn't in the business of slaughtering people.

How times change...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Got a formula for that?

Sure - here's a post from another forum by Jason, an evolutionary biologist, that explains the best-known formula - the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (note that alleles are the alternative forms of a gene in the pairs of chromosomes of multicellular creatures):

... there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation:

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"

The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:

1. mutation is not occurring

2. natural selection is not occurring

3. the population is infinitely large

4. all members of the population breed

5. all mating is totally random

6. everyone produces the same number of offspring

7. there is no migration in or out of the population

1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change.

2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change.

3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite.

4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change.

5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change.

6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change.

7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change.

"Let us assume that there is a trait that is determined by the inheritance of a gene with two alleles--B and b. If the parent generation has 92% B and 8% b and their offspring collectively have 90% B and 10% b, evolution has occurred between the generations. The entire population's gene pool has evolved in the direction of a higher frequency of the b allele--it was not just those individuals who inherited the b allele who evolved."

The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times.

Google "population genetics" for a much more detailed look at the mathematical tools used by evolutionary biologists. In particular, the Berkeley site."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure - here's a post from another forum by Jason, an evolutionary biologist, that explains the best-known formula - the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (note that alleles are the alternative forms of a gene in the pairs of chromosomes of multicellular creatures):

Jason said:
... there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation:

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"

The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:

1. mutation is not occurring

2. natural selection is not occurring

3. the population is infinitely large

4. all members of the population breed

5. all mating is totally random

6. everyone produces the same number of offspring

7. there is no migration in or out of the population

1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change.

2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change.

3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite.

4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change.

5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change.

6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change.

7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change.

"Let us assume that there is a trait that is determined by the inheritance of a gene with two alleles--B and b. If the parent generation has 92% B and 8% b and their offspring collectively have 90% B and 10% b, evolution has occurred between the generations. The entire population's gene pool has evolved in the direction of a higher frequency of the b allele--it was not just those individuals who inherited the b allele who evolved."

The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times.

Google "population genetics" for a much more detailed look at the mathematical tools used by evolutionary biologists. In particular, the Berkeley site."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jason said:
... there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation:

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"

The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:

1. mutation is not occurring

2. natural selection is not occurring

3. the population is infinitely large

4. all members of the population breed

5. all mating is totally random

6. everyone produces the same number of offspring

7. there is no migration in or out of the population

1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change.

2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change.

3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite.

4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change.

5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change.

6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change.

7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change.

"Let us assume that there is a trait that is determined by the inheritance of a gene with two alleles--B and b. If the parent generation has 92% B and 8% b and their offspring collectively have 90% B and 10% b, evolution has occurred between the generations. The entire population's gene pool has evolved in the direction of a higher frequency of the b allele--it was not just those individuals who inherited the b allele who evolved."

The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times.

Google "population genetics" for a much more detailed look at the mathematical tools used by evolutionary biologists. In particular, the Berkeley site."

That was pretty simple and to the point. It appears you may not have understood it.

Any questions?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't believe in macro evolution because I believe it's impossible for one thing to become another thing...

Every time a creature has offspring, one thing becomes another thing; a very similar thing, but different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Jason said:
... there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation:

p² + 2pq + q² = 1

Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"

The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:

1. mutation is not occurring

2. natural selection is not occurring

3. the population is infinitely large

4. all members of the population breed

5. all mating is totally random

6. everyone produces the same number of offspring

7. there is no migration in or out of the population

1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change.

2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change.

3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite.

4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change.

5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change.

6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change.

7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change.

"Let us assume that there is a trait that is determined by the inheritance of a gene with two alleles--B and b. If the parent generation has 92% B and 8% b and their offspring collectively have 90% B and 10% b, evolution has occurred between the generations. The entire population's gene pool has evolved in the direction of a higher frequency of the b allele--it was not just those individuals who inherited the b allele who evolved."

The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times.

Google "population genetics" for a much more detailed look at the mathematical tools used by evolutionary biologists. In particular, the Berkeley site."

You wanted to know if there was a formula - you got the best-known one with a detailed non-technical explanation.

 

[Paul James]

RTB also predicts that the flood of Noah was a local event. There is some evidence for a large flood in modern day Iraq around 2900 BC

If it was just a local flood then Noah and his family would have merely moved to higher ground along with the local animals and people. And the water would have just drained away into the Persian Gulf, resulting in no fossil record in the any of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon or on the upper slopes of Mt Everest.

If it was just a local flood, and not a sudden cataclysmic event, we wouldn't have fossilized fish with a small fish half in its mouth as if it were interrupted in its meal. Nor would there by Mammoths found frozen in ice with plant material still in their mouths as if they died right in the middle of eating. Also, a complete set of dinosaur bones that show it was bowled along and drowned in a great torrent of water, would not have been found like that. A smaller local flood would not have caused these results.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it was just a local flood then Noah and his family would have merely moved to higher ground along with the local animals and people. And the water would have just drained away into the Persian Gulf, resulting in no fossil record in the any of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon or on the upper slopes of Mt Everest.

If it was just a local flood, and not a sudden cataclysmic event, we wouldn't have fossilized fish with a small fish half in its mouth as if it were interrupted in its meal. Nor would there by Mammoths found frozen in ice with plant material still in their mouths as if they died right in the middle of eating. Also, a complete set of dinosaur bones that show it was bowled along and drowned in a great torrent of water, would not have been found like that. A smaller local flood would not have caused these results.

You were partly right.

I am sorry but if you look at the fossil evidence more closely it tells us that there was no flood. The deposits with fish fossils in them are clearly not "flood fossils".

The fossil record took hundreds of millions of years to form. A flood would have left one poorly sorted layer. We do not see that.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

You were partly right.

I am sorry but if you look at the fossil evidence more closely it tells us that there was no flood. The deposits with fish fossils in them are clearly not "flood fossils".

The fossil record took hundreds of millions of years to form. A flood would have left one poorly sorted layer. We do not see that.

"The idea of millions of years was seriously undermined in my postgraduate years when some conservative Roman Catholic pro-life friends invited me to a screening of the then new Evolution: Fact or Belief, made by European Catholic creationists. This included the work by French sedimentologist Guy Berthault. His experiments, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers do not need to be formed one at a time, over many years. Rather, many layers can form all at once by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles, as long as there is horizontal flow. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together—not over millions of years. Experiments on lamination of sediments The prestigious journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mt St Helens eruption in Washington State produced 7.6 metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!

Another problem for the millions of years scenario was ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’. To explain, think of the jagged surface of most landscapes, due to erosion. Streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys. But often the layers below them are completely smooth. Yet they are often claimed to have been deposited millions of years apart. But if the top of each layer had been exposed for millions of years, it should be as jagged as the surface.

A more obvious problem was the fossils. We simply don’t see fish fossilizing at the bottom of rivers and oceans. Nor are sheep and cattle farms filled with fossils. Why not? Because most dead animals are scavenged and disintegrate quickly. So the fact that we have fossils at all shows that they must have been buried rapidly." (from this article: Now a Creationist - creation.com)

The flood would have provided horizontal flow so the self sorting mechanism would apply.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Your link is to a list of PRATT's. Ideas refuted a long time ago. From a dishonest site where one has to swear not to use the scientific method.

If you ask "Such as" you tell us that you do not understand the concept of evidence. For example the entire fossil record is evidence for evolution. All creationist attempts to explain it fail.

Here is just one small piece of evidence. The hips of the Australopithecus africanus are closer to human hips than to any other ape. Yet creationists improperly try to say that she was "just an ape". They are somewhat right since they "just apes" as well:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf
Your claim that 'the entire fossil record is evidence for evolution' seems hyperbolic, to say the least. This fossil certainly isn't: Kamikaze ichthyosaur? - creation.com

 

[Paul James]

"The idea of millions of years was seriously undermined in my postgraduate years when some conservative Roman Catholic pro-life friends invited me to a screening of the then new Evolution: Fact or Belief, made by European Catholic creationists. This included the work by French sedimentologist Guy Berthault. His experiments, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers do not need to be formed one at a time, over many years. Rather, many layers can form all at once by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles, as long as there is horizontal flow. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together—not over millions of years. Experiments on lamination of sediments The prestigious journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mt St Helens eruption in Washington State produced 7.6 metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!

Another problem for the millions of years scenario was ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’. To explain, think of the jagged surface of most landscapes, due to erosion. Streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys. But often the layers below them are completely smooth. Yet they are often claimed to have been deposited millions of years apart. But if the top of each layer had been exposed for millions of years, it should be as jagged as the surface.

A more obvious problem was the fossils. We simply don’t see fish fossilizing at the bottom of rivers and oceans. Nor are sheep and cattle farms filled with fossils. Why not? Because most dead animals are scavenged and disintegrate quickly. So the fact that we have fossils at all shows that they must have been buried rapidly." (from this article: Now a Creationist - creation.com)

The flood would have provided horizontal flow so the self sorting mechanism would apply.

I love it!
They found that a whole canyon was form as the result of the Mt St Helen eruption due to the mudslides that came down from the mountain. It had the same characteristics, though smaller, as the Grand Canyon. It has been shown that there is no way that the Colorado river could have formed the Grand Canyon. Obviously it was formed by a greater cataclysmic event, such as giant mudslides caused by an enormous flood, and that Monument Valley was once a water and mud course which scoured out the land base, leaving the great structures seen there.

The fact that fossils of sea life can be found near the top of Mt Everest, and up in the Andes shows that once the area was flat land or even ocean, and the stupendous forces of the flood forced the mountains up to where they are now. Also, the world was made up of one great land-mass and most scientists agree, the continents separating over millions of years is disproved by evidence that the Sahara Desert was once fertile and forested, and evidence of plant life was found under the Antarctic ice. In actual fact, through the immense forces created by the great disruption of the earth's crust with the flood, the land mass broke up into the different continents and islands.

After the flood, the waters receded and became the oceans as we know them now. Then there was a major ice age which caused the oceans to drop in depth, exposing land bridges enabling wild-life to migrate to Australia and New Zealand, wildlife now native to these two countries died out and became extinct in the other areas of the world through genetic mutation. Then, as the ice age came to an end, the oceans rose and are as we know them today. Also, during the ice age when there were land bridges, indigenous peoples were able to migrate to places like Australia and the Americas from the area of the Middle East where the tower of Babel was (the foundations of which have been discovered under the ruins of Babylon).

Actually the foundation of the tower of Babel was still there, as recorded by history, until Alexander the Great destroyed them to a large extent when he arrived in that area.

Just a bit of useful information to add to your post!

 

[solid_core]

If it was just a local flood then Noah and his family would have merely moved to higher ground along with the local animals and people.

It would lack the symbolism of being hidden in Christ to flee the judgement of the world. The ark was the image of Christ.

Thats why Noah was commanded to build and enter the ark with all the animal kinds living in the area (sorry, no dinosaurs, no pinguins) instead of just moving to some far away area like South Africa.

 

[Paul James]

It would lack the symbolism of being hidden in Christ to flee the judgement of the world. The ark was the image of Christ.

Thats why Noah was commanded to build and enter the ark with all the animal kinds living in the area (sorry, no dinosaurs, no pinguins) instead of just moving to some far away area like South Africa.

Actually...
We often think of dinosaurs as being very large, but there are others that can be no bigger than the domestic dog. Noah brought seven of each animal family on board the ark, not every breed of every kind, including dinosaurs. We know this, because there are cave drawings showing humans hunting dinosaurs, and dinosaurs could co-exist with humans because they were plant-eating animals. But they eventually died out by the time that Abraham arrived on the scene, just like many other animals that went extinct. Perhaps they were hunted to extinction like the great Moa of New Zealand which were hunted to extinction by the early Maori.

 

[solid_core]

Actually...
We often think of dinosaurs as being very large, but there are others that can be no bigger than the domestic dog. Noah brought seven of each animal family on board the ark, not every breed of every kind, including dinosaurs. We know this, because there are cave drawings showing humans hunting dinosaurs, and dinosaurs could co-exist with humans because they were plant-eating animals. But they eventually died out by the time that Abraham arrived on the scene, just like many other animals that went extinct. Perhaps they were hunted to extinction like the great Moa of New Zealand which were hunted to extinction by the early Maori.

There were both plant eating and carnivor dinosaurs. And none of them lived with humans

 

[Paul James]

There were both plant eating and carnivor dinosaurs. And none of them lived with humans

Cave drawings indicate otherwise. It shows humans hunting dinosaurs.

 

[solid_core]

Cave drawings indicate otherwise. It shows humans hunting dinosaurs.

I can make also cave drawings, showing for example people with Klingons (Star Trek).