Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[KrazyHorse]

Sikander

I know they didn't use the theoretical approach to things, but that increases my respect. Theory is a shortcut for practice; theory would help reject a hundred bad ideas you'd have to go through if you didn't know it. Real, formal, theory didn't even begin until Newton started his work, and this is why progress was so greatly increased after this. It doesn't mean they had any less need of the brains they had than we do, though. Pattern-matching, noticing coincidences and discovering similarities are all demanding intellectual tasks, especially when you're starting out with very limited experience/knowledge.

Look at how many great scientists have lived in the last 350 years. I could rattle off a hundred names that made real, original contributions to science and technology. How many great scientists can you name from before 1500? Yet there is 40 000 years of advance made before this by tens of billions of physiologically modern humans. These people were no less intelligent than we, but because they had no foundation to work from their progress was slow and painstaking, trial-and-error. The human mind was stretched to its limits to achieve what we look back on and perceive as minor advancements in flint tools and the like.

[Sikander]

Krazy,

Your point is well taken. My point is that it takes quite an infrastructure for theoretical research to be productive. One thing that generations of people (and proto-people) have had is a lot of time to screw around tinkering and sometimes discovering something really useful.

To me the most critical element is the ability to communicate and retain intergenerationally the discoveries made by those insightful inventors. Imagine how many times things were discovered and forgotten throughout history before writing, or before complex speech and a purposeful oral tradition would retain them, and allow that "tinker time" to be fruitfully turned toward a new problem. Talk about a labor saver.

The fact that so many great scientists have lived in the past few hundred years is a testament to the power of communication, the scientific method, and a large population.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There isn't really that much evidence for the theory of evolution - a least not enough to satisfy a skeptical scientist (like me!). There is a lot of evidence for certain areas: for example, evolution via mutation does occur in the laboratory in fruit flies, and carbon dating of fossils gives tells us the the Earth is older than the traditional 6000 years. There is also some evidence to suggest that the universe itself is approximately 14 billion years old (but you could dispute that).

I wonder why the non-scientists are so sure in here when a scientist like you who believe in evolution isn't.

Anyways, carbon dating, what are the conditions for this theory to be true? Does major changes in the climate, athmosphere allow for this theory? For example the bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky and that this burst down on earth. I'm sure the carbon dating method has limitations of certain conditions for it to be true.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I wonder why the non-scientists are so sure in here when a scientist like you who believe in evolution isn't,

Rogan is not a biologist. There is, for instance, far more evidence for evolution than for the existence of the electron, or for the historical existence of George Washington. Science teaches that everything is a theory: even the theory that the Earth is round, for instance.

But ALL genuine biologists agree that evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt (by "genuine" biologists, I mean the thousands who are open to scientific evidence, not the dozen or so fundies who have managed to obtain degrees in the subject despite not believing what they were taught).

I wonder why the non-scientists are so sure in here when a scientist like you who believe in evolution isn't.

Interesting that you dismiss those who accept evolution as "teenagers", "hillbillies", and now "non-scientists". Do you actually know that evolution is the accepted view of basically the entire scientific community? What about the other scientists here on Apolyton? Provost Harrison has a degree in biology, and I expect there are others here.

Anyways, carbon dating, what are the conditions for this theory to be true? Does major changes in the climate, athmosphere allow for this theory? For example the bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky and that this burst down on earth. I'm sure the carbon dating method has limitations of certain conditions for it to be true.

Carbon dating isn't particularly relevant to evolutionary history, as it only goes back about 50,000 years. No climate conditions can affect the forms of radiometric dating used to date rocks.

And the Bible does not teach that "the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky". The waters were above the solid firmament which covered the flat Earth like a dome. You're already twisting the Hebrew cosmology to fit some of the findings of modern science: so why stop there?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is, for instance, far more evidence for evolution than for the existence of the electron...

Good grief! You have got to be joking, right?

Ever heard of electricity?

(Actually the most accurately known fundamental constant in the world is the electroweak coupling constant - essentially the charge of the electron.)

[Viper2263]

100 Billion amphibians can't be wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Sikander

I totally agree with the importance of communication in advancing knowledge, and don't doubt that many inventions appeared and disappeared multiple times through our history. My major point is that we weren't over-engineered for our primitive past; beyond a certain point of development intelligence showed increasing rather than diminishing returns.

Jack: I can "prove" the existence of the electron with 19th century technical instrumentation and a solid week setup and experimentation. A Crooke's tube and the Millikan(sp?) oil-drop experiment by themselves are a pretty decent proof of the electron's existence. While the evolution of lifeforms through mutation, genetic drift and natural selection has been demonstrated to have occurred beyond what to my mind constitutes reasonable doubt, I'd say we're even more certain of the electron's existence due to the fact that anybody in the world can convince themselves of it fairly easily.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Interesting that you dismiss those who accept evolution as "teenagers", "hillbillies", and now "non-scientists".

Teenagers? This was actually adressed to a teenager in here who had a short visit. Hillbillies and non-scientists? You misunderstood this once. Then I explained it. You skip my explanation and then you misunderstood this for the 2nd time. As I stated earlier I was referring to my signature and was not trying to insult anyone. Please don't misunderstand this thrice.

Flat earth:
The bible doesn't teach that doctrine. The earth looks flat from where I stand. That doesn't make it flat. This is what the bible teaches.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And the Bible does not teach that "the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky". The waters were above the solid firmament which covered the flat Earth like a dome. You're already twisting the Hebrew cosmology to fit some of the findings of modern science: so why stop there?

This is what the bible says:
Gen1:6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below.

Psalm 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.

Genesis7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Genesis7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

The waters were above and below according to scripture.

Genesis 7:19: Does evolution theory open up for such a massive flood?

[Viper2263]

I think precipitation would have been a pretty stagering concept to the ancient Hebrews; God may have told them about modern science, however, when He tried to explain such simple things such as where rain water comes from would have been on about the level you would be able to explain quantum physics to a child. No matter how you put it to them, until they discovered enough on their own they will never understand it. And therefore make up their own explanations, while not perhaps true, that are easily understand able. After all the universe can't be that complex. Can it?

I believe to some degree that modern science is God's current communication with us and he is simply leading us along a path (much like some people can do in conversation) that will help him explain to us, without the Earth shattering, burning bush type, communications of the past, precisely how he created man & Earth.

Science and Religion are effectively two sides to the same coin. People are constantly trying to seperate the two, but lets face it they describe the exact same thing!

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd say we're even more certain of the electron's existence due to the fact that anybody in the world can convince themselves of it fairly easily.

I'm sure if someone's holy book claimed there are no electrons there'd be many people like the creationists who deny it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

There is plenty of evidence for the force called electricity, of course, But the existence of the electron can easily be brushed aside by someone who doesn't want to know anything about them. Vapor trails? bubble trails? Floating oil droplets? Pshaw!

Actually the most accurately known fundamental constant in the world is the electroweak coupling constant - essentially the charge of the electron.

And the evidence for the common descent of all living organisms from shared ancestors is similarly certain: the odds of the fossil record appearing as it does by chance (or creationist "Flood sorting", or basically anything else except common descent) are much less than the reciprocal of a googol (10 to the 100th power). Similar results apply to the patterns revealed by DNA analysis and other disciplines. Overall, I'd say the certainty of common descent is nailed down as tightly as the value of the electroweak coupling constant.

Lars:

The waters were above and below according to scripture.

I suggest you read your own Biblical quotes again. The "waters of the deep" were supposedly underground, not on the far side of the planet. In Genesis, God puts some of the water above the firmament and some below (in the seas and under the ground). "Above and below" isn't the same as "surrounded"

Genesis 7:19: Does evolution theory open up for such a massive flood?

The Great Flood did not happen. There is no catastrophic mass-extinction in the fossil record since the demise of the dinosaurs. The genetic diversity of living species represents millions of years of divergence: no "pairs on Noah's Ark". There are written records from civilizations unaffected by this "flood". There are geological features (ice layers and sediment layers) unaffected by the Flood. And so on...

The nonexistence of the Great Flood has been proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt. Therefore Genesis is false. It is not necessary for evolution to "allow for" this nonexistent event.

Pphysicists, however, have failed to allow for the invisible pixies that levitate oil drops in experiments to "prove" the existence of the electron. Unlike the Great Flood, there is no evidence that those pixies do NOT exist.

[Lung]

OH.....MY.....GAADD!!!!

11 entire pages of posts comprised of people banging their heads against a wall in a vain attempt to convince the rest whose collective wills shall not be moved!!

I think the old testament (at the very least) is a load of bollocks, but trying to explain the merits of evolutionary theory to these people is a lost cause, i'm afraid

The entire point of this is not to disprove the flood, but that it was not done by the will of god! However, this is pointless as it can never be disproven, so it is by virtue a lost cause. What is important, however, is that such a flood, or even a boat, does not prove the existence of god, or more particularly, that he directly influences events on earth, or anywhere else in the universe for that matter!

If people want to believe in the bible, let them, as it is, after all, a matter of faith, not of fact. Of course, this does not give them the right to dictate to everyone else not to teach evolution. The reason they do this is simple. Evolutionary theory challenges, indirectly or otherwise, the bible, so they consider it be; at best, an affront; at worst, blasphemy. The truth of the matter is that scientific education allows one to challenge orthodox science, so it should be taught as it is the purest form of searching for the truth. Biblical teachings cannot be afforded the same level of impartiality, however.

There may be a god, but if there is, he/she is restricted to either creating the universe, in which he could not play a further role in it's development, or he was created with the universe, in which case he is subject to the same laws of physics (whatever they may ultimately be) as the rest of us. I expect neither case to please creationists, so i can expect many vehement and venemous replies of outrage

Of course, it is always important to point out that evolution of life is only a theory. However, scientific theories allow us to accurately predict events, and alone have allowed the development of all moden conveniences, and the standard of living which few in history have ever enjoyed. God may have set the wheels in motion, but our destiny for now seems firmly in our own hands.

Cheers,
Lung the philosopher

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And the evidence for the common descent of all living organisms from shared ancestors is similarly certain: the odds of the fossil record appearing as it does by chance (or creationist "Flood sorting", or basically anything else except common descent) are much less than the reciprocal of a googol (10 to the 100th power). Similar results apply to the patterns revealed by DNA analysis and other disciplines. Overall, I'd say the certainty of common descent is nailed down as tightly as the value of the electroweak coupling constant.

I don't know how you can justify this statement. I accept that we are probably 'related' to apes (although I would say that the similarity of our DNA is more compelling than any fossil records, which imho are incomplete), but you are pushing credibility somewhat to suggest that all life on Earth is related. In fact, it is probably not - there is some evidence for silicon based (as opposed to carbon based) life forms living inside volcanos, that cannot be 'related' to the carbon based life forms. I would go further, and suggest that not all carbon based life forms have a common decent either. Life on Earth consists of far more than just apes and humans.

But neither the fossil records nor the similarity of our DNA say anything about the mechanism of evolution. The only evidence that we have for Natural Selection is amongst very short lived organisms which we can 'evolve' in the laboratory. To say that this implies the same mechanism for the evolution of man implies an extrapolation of over 6 orders of magnitude. Hardly convincing. Many people who research such matters would not make this extrapolation. For example, one school of thought is that the mutations do not occur continuously but coincide with some cataclysmic event. These events could explain why there are so many big jumps in the fossil records.

My point here is that while Darwin's evolution is not contradicted by the evidence, the evidence does not, by any means, explore all the implications of his model, but only tests certain aspects. One should be aware that other (albeit similar) models may give surprisingly similar results which also match the current evidence.

And then, there is still the initail creation event(s) which we have been completely unable to reproduce in the laboratory....

[Jack the Bodiless]

I don't know how you can justify this statement. I accept that we are probably 'related' to apes (although I would say that the similarity of our DNA is more compelling than any fossil records, which imho are incomplete), but you are pushing credibility somewhat to suggest that all life on Earth is related. In fact, it is probably not - there is some evidence for silicon based (as opposed to carbon based) life forms living inside volcanos, that cannot be 'related' to the carbon based life forms. I would go further, and suggest that not all carbon based life forms have a common decent either. Life on Earth consists of far more than just apes and humans.

I think you're referring to the "extremophile" bacteria that live in near-boiling, highly acidic water around volcanic vents. They are, nevertheless, carbon-based. In fact, they are genetically similar to the mitochondria that metabolize oxygen in our cells. Mitochondria reproduce separately (by asexual fission), and are thought to be bacteria which became involved in a symbiotic relationship with our protozoan ancestors during the "oxygen crisis", when oxygen from photosynthesis began to accumulate in the atmosphere.

It is certain that all multicellular life is related (we are all eukaryotes), and even prokaryotic bacteria and viruses use the same bases in their DNA and the same genetic code. Scientists can be pretty sure that all life on Earth is related.

But neither the fossil records nor the similarity of our DNA say anything about the mechanism of evolution. The only evidence that we have for Natural Selection is amongst very short lived organisms which we can 'evolve' in the laboratory. To say that this implies the same mechanism for the evolution of man implies an extrapolation of over 6 orders of magnitude. Hardly convincing. Many people who research such matters would not make this extrapolation. For example, one school of thought is that the mutations do not occur continuously but coincide with some cataclysmic event. These events could explain why there are so many big jumps in the fossil records.

Both mutation and natural selection have been observed many times in animals of all types and sizes. Whenever a human being dies without progeny as a result of a congenital defect, that's a harmful mutation being knocked out by natural selection.

In "Punctuated Equilibrium", the mutations happen regardless of circumstances: what varies is the likelihood that a random mutation will prove beneficial, which tends to be during periods of change. Darwin himself predicted what we now call "chaos theory" with regard to the stability of ecosystems: a single event such as the arrival of a new predator can produce a cascade of change. Variable mutation rates is a more recent concept involving "mutagenic mutations" (mutations whic make further mutation more likely). Because mutations tend to be harmful, such a trait tends to get eliminated, but the situation can be reversed under circumstances where beneficial mutations are urgently needed (in times of rapid change), causing a burst of accelerated mutation. This is still Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection: it is not an "alternative mechanism".

My point here is that while Darwin's evolution is not contradicted by the evidence, the evidence does not, by any means, explore all the implications of his model, but only tests certain aspects. One should be aware that other (albeit similar) models may give surprisingly similar results which also match the current evidence.

Any alternative model must include common descent, because this is what the evidence clearly indicates. Furthermore, mutations WILL happen and natural selection WILL operate, so any alternative model must also incorporate the inevitability of Darwinian evolution. So far, other than the fanciful claims of creationists and their ilk, such models operate within Darwinian evolution.

And then, there is still the initail creation event(s) which we have been completely unable to reproduce in the laboratory....

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. But much progress has been made, despite the huge difficulty of simulating all the biochemical reactions in the Earth's oceans over millions of years into hundreds of little test-tubes and a timescale of days or weeks. It's rather like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.