a question or two for "J.P. Holding" [Archive]

jimbo

March 2nd 2003, 12:11 AM

Mr. "Holding,"

Jimbo:

"Do you believe that Genesis is literally true? If you say yes, then would you be kind enough to say when you believe the Adam and Eve incident and the Flood of Noah took place?"

"Holding":

"My answer to #1 is yes. My answer to #2 is, I don't know and I don't care."

I stated before that I am not interested in debating your religious opinions. However, I am interested in undertanding your interpretation of Genesis and learning what you base your interpretation of Genesis on. So now that you have stated that you are a Genesis literalist, I have a few more questions I hope you would be kind enough to entertain:

How did you determine that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of history?

Have you tested the claims found in Genesis against any recent research about cosmology, geology, astronomy and biology?

Was there some other process that you went through before determining that Genesis is literally true?

Are you aware that modern science does not support Genesis as an accurate portrayal of history?

What do you think about this? Do you suspect that scientists- including liberal Christian scientists-are engaged in some sort of evil conspiracy against conservative Christians such as yourself?

You say that you do not know and do not care when the events in Genesis transpired. Let me ask you another question, then. As a Christian apologist who is presumably very familar with the Bible, are you aware that the Gospels provide a genealogy for Jesus that goes back to Noah and Adam? Do you think this genealogy is a true genealogy or a fake genealogy?

I appreciate your answers to my questions. Of course you are free to ask me questions in return, but my main interest here is in understanding how you integrate a literal interpretation of Genesis with modern knowledge that appears to be overwhelmingly against such an interpretation.

Later,

Gilbert

Blake Reas

March 2nd 2003, 03:20 PM

03-02-2003 @ 04:11 AM
jimbo:

Mr. "Holding,"

I stated before that I am not interested in debating your religious opinions. However, I am interested in undertanding your interpretation of Genesis and learning what you base your interpretation of Genesis on. So now that you have stated that you are a Genesis literalist, I have a few more questions I hope you would be kind enough to entertain:

How did you determine that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of history?

As in an accurate portrayal of History do you mean in the ANE or in your Modern 21st century ethnocentric view? I cannot speak for JP but I believe that it was History to the ones who wrote it.

Have you tested the claims found in Genesis against any recent research about cosmology, geology, astronomy and biology?

Yes, I know what you want out of Genesis you wanted God telling Moses that E=MC2 and all about the Big Bang, Black Holes, etc, etc etc. This is a question that really makes no sense to it's Historical Context.

Was there some other process that you went through before determining that Genesis is literally true?

JP can answer that!

Are you aware that modern science does not support Genesis as an accurate portrayal of history?

See above, it is ridicoulous that God would set there and tell a guy who lived in the Ancient Near East before the advent of the Modern era about science in the way we think of it.

hmmm.. I don't think many of us read Hovinid on this site. :Spam:

[quote]You say that you do not know and do not care when the events in Genesis transpired. Let me ask you another question, then. As a Christian apologist who is presumably very familar with the Bible, are you aware that the Gospels provide a genealogy for Jesus that goes back to Noah and Adam? Do you think this genealogy is a true genealogy or a fake genealogy?

It is a true Geneology, I personally hold to the position that Francis Schaeffer coined which is "No Final Conflict" which states that when all the evidence is in there will be no conflict between Genesis and Science.

I appreciate your answers to my questions. Of course you are free to ask me questions in return, but my main interest here is in understanding how you integrate a literal interpretation of Genesis with modern knowledge that appears to be overwhelmingly against such an interpretation.

What goes overwhelmingly against the interpretation? The Modern Naturalistic bias? The same bias that cannot explain the empty tomb? :confused: All evidence is interpreted in light of someones bias, it is which bias makes the most since of the evidence.

Thanks for the inquisitive questions. I am sure JP will be able to answer them better than I can. I hold the same position as him I do not know enough about science and I have a hard time taking someone's word for it. It is an area I plan on investigating someday though

Later,

Gilbert :rockon:

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

Epoetker

March 2nd 2003, 04:09 PM

Jimbo:

The reason Holding doesn't answer questions like this is manyfold:

1. His expertise rests mainly on gauging the validity of WRITTEN history, not history gleaned from observations (or the theory on what the observations are supposed to mean, in an endless tautological circle, etc.) of natural phenomena. The closer to the present day the written records of events rests, the more confident one can be of its validity.

2. JP Holding, as well as many other conservative Christians with something to say on creationism, have a fundamentally different set of assumptions, the greatest of which is that there's nothing from preventing God from interacting with the universe at any time period in its existence. Can science, which deals with observable, repeatable phenomena, have a heck of a lot to say on specific events of that type? If it uses the same hedged-around-with-innumerable-qualifications method that reputable scientific journals use, not much.

3. Priorities, priorities, priorities. New methodologies for reading scientific data are discovered every year. New interpretations of classic theories come around every decade. Revolutions in scientific thought come around every century. Given the fact that these shake-ups take up gobs of time and research to hash out the new knowledge and processes gained from them, is it any wonder that apologists for Christianity are going to focus on the history and life of Christ Himself, whose documents and data thereof are readily and widely available, and unlikely to be contradicted by a new theory of historical scholarship (save the type of unthinking popular revisionism whose methods would draw exactly the same criticisms that YOU would make of YECs, and moreso?)

4. Would you choose a naturalistic philosophy that required you to accept all charges of the miraculous, no matter how probable, with unbelief, or would you accept a philosophy that allowed naturalism to 'work' while at the same time allowing for the possibility of interaction in the natural environment from outside the universe? I myself prefer the widest explanatory net.

In essence, it seems to me that you've read Holding's work on Christianity, and found it intellectually convincing. However, in order to avoid a personal decision on that issue, you've decided to push the evolution gambit, which requires a different set of assumptions to accept. However, he, as well as I, have absolutely no trouble with leaving that issue up in the air while dealing with more recent events. After all, accepting Jesus Christ as a personal savior is a decision which has immediate relevance to one's daily life, while accepting the naturalist view of ancient history has practically none. He'd rather expend his mental energy on more tractable topics with immediate possibilities toward improving the state(fitness?:smile:) of humanity.

jpholding

March 2nd 2003, 04:44 PM

To the various wildebeest here:

What specific pieces of information do you feel you lack, in order to "have the knowledge" to make a statement?

Several degrees' worth of education in relevant scientific fields.

How did you determine that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of history?

By the usual means that one uses to determine whether any account is an accurate portayal of history. :duh:

Have you tested the claims found in Genesis against any recent research about cosmology, geology, astronomy and biology?

Nope.

Was there some other process that you went through before determining that Genesis is literally true?

Nope.

Are you aware that modern science does not support Genesis as an accurate portrayal of history?

Duh, nope. :duh: Are you aware that you are a pedantic nuisance? :rofl:

What do you think about this? Do you suspect that scientists- including liberal Christian scientists-are engaged in some sort of evil conspiracy against conservative Christians such as yourself?

No, I suspect they may just be stupid, given the number that also endorse such idiocies as, i.e., "Christianity borrowed from Mithraism". Most I have run across are too disorganzied to be running any sort of conspiracy.

You say that you do not know and do not care when the events in Genesis transpired. Let me ask you another question, then. As a Christian apologist who is presumably very familar with the Bible, are you aware that the Gospels provide a genealogy for Jesus that goes back to Noah and Adam? Do you think this genealogy is a true genealogy or a fake genealogy?

I think it is true and have yet to see a reason within my scope of training to think otherwise.

Back to your peanuts. In closing I will echo Epo with these words: There is great wisdom is not speaking authoritatively about subjects you know nothing about. Unfortunately freethinkers do not always learn this lesson.

Epoetker

March 2nd 2003, 05:21 PM

Let's hope that your latest response puts the Destructo-disc (I REALLY could have gone with Kien-zan) to this diversionary tactic.

I doubts it, though. But shouldn't the trophy room have a picture of Hercule/Mr. Satan, rather than the immensely powerful Majin Buu, to represent the typical Skeptic, though? Accuracy of avatarish representation and all that.

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 08:04 PM

03-02-2003 @ 12:44 PM
jpholding:

To the various wildebeest here:

What specific pieces of information do you feel you lack, in order to "have the knowledge" to make a statement?

Several degrees' worth of education in relevant scientific fields.

Hm. So you are saying that it is impossible to come to an informed opinion about creationism, without several degrees? So not even an experienced layman could form a reasonable conclusion?

For whatever it's worth - the people who do possess such a collection of degrees uniformly state that creationism is not a viable explanation for the natural world. Perhaps that should tell you something.
:idea:

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 08:09 PM

A small problem here. First he says:

You say that you do not know and do not care when the events in Genesis transpired. Let me ask you another question, then. As a Christian apologist who is presumably very familar with the Bible, are you aware that the Gospels provide a genealogy for Jesus that goes back to Noah and Adam? Do you think this genealogy is a true genealogy or a fake genealogy?

I think it is true and have yet to see a reason within my scope of training to think otherwise.

This would seem to contradict your earlier statement that you cannot form such an opinion, without vast amounts of education:

What specific pieces of information do you feel you lack, in order to "have the knowledge" to make a statement?

Several degrees' worth of education in relevant scientific fields.

Which is it? Are you forming opinions on insufficient information? Why would you deliberately do that, knowing how risky and unprofessional that is?

Or, have you acquired what you feel is a sufficient amount of data to make an informed opinion about Adam/Eve/Noah/Flood, etc. If so, would you care to elucidate on the data points that caused you to arrive at your conclusion?

Cheers.

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 08:14 PM

03-02-2003 @ 12:44 PM
jpholding:

Are you aware that modern science does not support Genesis as an accurate portrayal of history?

Duh, nope. :duh: Are you aware that you are a pedantic nuisance? :rofl:

So you are claiming to be unaware of what modern science has to say, about the genesis story? REALLY? Considering how widespread modern science's opinion on this matter is, how did you manage to avoid hearing or reading it for your entire life?

Are you sure that this is your claim? It seems patently unbelievable that you're unaware of science's opinion here. You might not *agree* with science; but to claim that you're ignorant of what it says; well that requires another whole level of wilfull blindness.

I don't think the original poster is pedantic. The more I read of your posts, however, it seems clear that you are deliberately ducking questions that you fear you cannot answer. So you toss out "pedantic" as a distraction, when the real issue is that you cannot defend your position and would like to avoid being caught in the cross-hairs.

Epoetker

March 3rd 2003, 12:13 AM

So you are saying that it is impossible to come to an informed opinion about creationism, without several degrees? So not even an experienced layman could form a reasonable conclusion?

Have you READ how deeply JP Holding goes into his areas of expertise on biblical history and scholarship? Do you think he'd be satisfied with even a cursory explanation of a "scientific" position on creationism WITHOUT several degrees on the type of research required? (His site advertises itself as "Building Blocks for the Christian Faith-did'ya think he'd comment on blocks he couldn't shape himself?) Have you debated at ARN lately with the whole spectrum of anti-evolutionists-not just the easy-pickings traditional creationists, but the panspermists, IDists, and progressive creationists? Can you, offhand, please explain to me how a stick insect, against all reasonable hypotheses on the degredation of non-phenotypic DNA, can lose its wings for a 50-million year period, only to have them expressed again good as new? Can you show how this observation cannot be explained by any of the myriad models between creation and evolution? Have you even tried to go as deeply into Biblical/historical scholarship as Holding has?

For whatever it's worth - the people who do possess such a collection of degrees uniformly state that creationism is not a viable explanation for the natural world. Perhaps that should tell you something.

Even Holding could call you on the " 'most scholars' shebang.":whip: I suppose they've also produced a collection of refutations to Tekton 1-4.
:lol:

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 01:04 AM

03-02-2003 @ 08:13 PM
Epoetker:

Have you READ how deeply JP Holding goes into his areas of expertise on biblical history and scholarship?

Yes. I'm actually surprised at how shallow it is. It's about 80% self-congratulatory bluster and/or ad hominems.

Have you debated at ARN lately with the whole spectrum of anti-evolutionists-not just the easy-pickings traditional creationists, but the panspermists, IDists, and progressive creationists?

I've spent several years on talk.origins, as well as infidels.org. Been there, done that.

Can you, offhand, please explain to me how a stick insect, against all reasonable hypotheses on the degredation of non-phenotypic DNA,

Can you support your characterization of this process (the part I put in bold face, above)?

can lose its wings for a 50-million year period, only to have them expressed again good as new?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/byu-wsl011303.php

"This is the first example of a complex feature being lost and recovered much later in an evolutionary lineage," Whiting said. "Even though the wing is not physically there, the underlying genetics which construct wings appear to be conserved over evolutionary time. It suggests that complexity can be maintained over tens of millions of years."
[...]
Whiting believes the instructions for growing wings are related to the instructions for making legs and can be turned on and off over long periods of time. The new study means evolutionary lineages can be more adaptive than previously thought, with the ability to move back and forth from a winged or wingless state. He expects future studies to show similar results in cockroaches and other insects, and possibly even in other classes of animals.

And here's a discussion you might want to review, before expecting others to be as easily amazed as you obviously were:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43432&highlight=walking+AND+stick

Can you show how this observation cannot be explained by any of the myriad models between creation and evolution?

Why should I try to show something that I don't believe?

Besides, to even entertain this concept goes against YEC and OEC models, because it admits the evolutionary process.

Have you even tried to go as deeply into Biblical/historical scholarship as Holding has?

Holding has a gift for stitching together the patchwork of other people's work. Don't mistake that for his own education or intellect, however.

jimbo

March 3rd 2003, 04:32 AM

Mr. "Holding,"

How did you determine that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of history?

By the usual means that one uses to determine whether any account is an accurate portayal of history.

I am afraid I am not clear on the process of procedure you went through. I am sure you are a busy man, but would you be kind enough to lay out just a few of the specifics?

Have you tested the claims found in Genesis against any recent research about cosmology, geology, astronomy and biology?

Nope.

You didn't think it was important to at least know what the experts had to say on, say, the timelines?

Was there some other process that you went through before determining that Genesis is literally true?

Nope.

As I mentioned above, I would be very curious to know about the "usual means" that you employed to determine the accuracy fo the book of Genesis since I am not familar with the "usual means" you are referring to and they didn't seem to be particularly effective in this case.

Are you aware that modern science does not support Genesis as an accurate portrayal of history?

Duh, nope.

I can understand if you disagree with the findings of modern science. You have admitted that you are not terribly knowledgable about scientific matters so perhaps such a disagreement would be based on your opinion and your emotions. What I find difficult to accept, however, is this idea that you, a highly educated and well-read Christian apologist, are unaware that modern scientific research does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Are you aware that you are a pedantic nuisance?

It is too bad that you consider me a nuisance because I'm one of your greatest fans! : )

What do you think about this? Do you suspect that scientists- including liberal Christian scientists-are engaged in some sort of evil conspiracy against conservative Christians such as yourself?

No, I suspect they may just be stupid, given the number that also endorse such idiocies as, i.e., "Christianity borrowed from Mithraism". Most I have run across are too disorganzied to be running any sort of conspiracy.

You suspect "they may just be stupid" because a "number of them endorse such idiocies as 'Christianity borrowed from Mithraism''" You are aware, I am sure, that a good many scientists whose findings cast doubt on a literal interpretation of Genesis are, in fact, liberal Christians.

You say that you do not know and do not care when the events in Genesis transpired. Let me ask you another question, then. As a Christian apologist who is presumably very familar with the Bible, are you aware that the Gospels provide a genealogy for Jesus that goes back to Noah and Adam? Do you think this genealogy is a true genealogy or a fake genealogy?

I think it is true and have yet to see a reason within my scope of training to think otherwise.

Okay. The Genealogy for Jesus in Luke goes back to Noah and Adam--and even to God. It contains about 75 names. If we suppose that a new generation begins every 20 years or so, that would mean that the human race began with Adam and Eve about 2000 years before Jesus was born. My question is this: taking into account your lack of training and interest in scientific matters, do you actually believe that the human race got its start aproximately 2000 years before Jesus was born? I am just looking to get your layperson opinion on this.

Back to your peanuts. In closing I will echo Epo with these words: There is great wisdom is not speaking authoritatively about subjects you know nothing about. Unfortunately freethinkers do not always learn this lesson.

There is also great wisdom in changing your position when the facts argue against it.

All the Best,

Frank

Socrates

March 3rd 2003, 05:36 AM

Jimbo (or what ever he's calling himself these days) wrote:

The Genealogy for Jesus in Luke goes back to Noah and Adam — and even to God.Ya got that right!
It contains about 75 names. If we suppose that a new generation begins every 20 years or so, that would mean that the human race began with Adam and Eve about 2000 years before Jesus was born.A generation time in Genesis 11 was over 30 years, and far longer in Genesis 5. And from other Biblical data about the Babylonian exile, Exodus and Egyptian slavery, we can assume that the Flood was about 2500 BC and Creation about 4000 BC.

BTW, some genealogies in the Bible are clearly intended to be incomplete. E.g. Matthew's genealogy of Christ is clearly stated to be 3 groups of 14 selected names, because of the numeric value of David's name. I'm not sure about Luke's, which is Christ's genealogy via Mary. But I think there's good evidence that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are written with the intention of providing a tight chronology.

You gotta problem with that? Then refute the evidence here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp).

There is also great wisdom in changing your position when the facts argue against it. And even greater wisdom in learning to distinguish between facts and their interpretations!

Socrates

March 3rd 2003, 09:43 AM

Epoetker:
Can you, offhand, please explain to me how a stick insect, against all reasonable hypotheses on the degredation of non-phenotypic DNA, can lose its wings for a 50-million year period, only to have them expressed again good as new? Can you show how this observation cannot be explained by any of the myriad models between creation and evolution?Don't expect an ignoramus like Sauron to understand the problem. But a good article is Evolution revolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0130stick_insect.asp), by a qualified zoologist with a number of published papers to his credit. But of course, the materialist bigots reinterpret anything as evidence for goo-to-you evolution, even though it's only information being lost or switched off. Then somehow, the information was switched on again, even though those genes should have suffered heaps of mutations over the alleged millions of years without the constraint of natural selection.

Epoetker:
Have you even tried to go as deeply into Biblical/historical scholarship as Holding has? That village atheist Sauron hasn't even broken the surface tension!

Jimbo:
For whatever it's worth - the people who do possess such a collection of degrees uniformly state that creationism is not a viable explanation for the natural world. Perhaps that should tell you something.Yes, the propensity for ridiculous generalizations by misotheists. There are HEAPS of Ph.D. scientists who would scoff at this crazy "uniformly" claim — see Creationist Scientist biographies (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp)

Epoetker:
Even Holding could call you on the " 'most scholars' shebang." I suppose they've also produced a collection of refutations to Tekton 1-4.
Who needs to? Sauron has decreed from on high that Holding's material is wrong, regardless of whether the evidence backs him up or not.

jpholding

March 3rd 2003, 11:37 AM

Time to clean some house.

Epo:

Let's hope that your latest response puts the Destructo-disc (I REALLY could have gone with Kien-zan) to this diversionary tactic.

It won't, as has become obvious. The arrogance of freethinkers to suppose that one ought to be able to be an expert after just a cursory reading of any subject is well known. They cannot imagine any such thing as reserved judgment on a complex topic.

I doubts it, though. But shouldn't the trophy room have a picture of Hercule/Mr. Satan, rather than the immensely powerful Majin Buu, to represent the typical Skeptic, though? Accuracy of avatarish representation and all that

Buu was the only one I could find making the appropriate expression. However the inconsistency would only be known by those familar with DBZ lore, so I figured it would be just as well.

Sauron:

Hm. So you are saying that it is impossible to come to an informed opinion about creationism, without several degrees? So not even an experienced layman could form a reasonable
conclusion?

Those that think so are probably deceiving themselves and/or depending significantly on second-hand data which they collect merely to confirm whatever point of view they have decided ahead of time is true. It happens in all fields.

For whatever it's worth - the people who do possess such a collection of degrees uniformly state that creationism is not a viable explanation for the natural world. Perhaps that should tell you something.

Not a thing, although we do learn that certain persons tend to overstate ("uniformly") to make their case. The "most scholars say" shazam, as Epo pointed out, deserves a cruel death when it gets beyond irrelevant stupidities like the Roman Piso theorem.

This would seem to contradict your earlier statement that you cannot form such an opinion, without vast amounts of education:

Which I have obtained for myself in the described fields, despite your deluded desire to think otherwise. 80% bluster and ad hom, is it? Then get your hobbit-kissing patoot over to the Coach's Quarters and issue a challenge on a selection of 3-5 of my articles for us to pick from. Let me know when you do and we'll see whether that ring is good for anything other than hanging in your nose. :ahem:

Or, have you acquired what you feel is a sufficient amount of data to make an informed opinion about Adam/Eve/Noah/Flood, etc. If so, would you care to elucidate on the data points that caused you to arrive at your conclusion?

I have clearly stated that I do not have sufficient data to make an informed opinion in the science aspects. Were the historical data to stand alone, the evidence would be clear cut in favor of a general historicity, as much as can be granted for any historical document.

So you are claiming to be unaware of what modern science has to say, about the genesis story? REALLY?

No, you missed the :duh: at the end. I admire your skills of observation, which bespeak the likely accuracy of your "80%" statement.

I don't think the original poster is pedantic.

Jimbo is so pedantic that a gnat burp has more philosophical meaning than any one of his posts. :rofl:

The more I read of your posts, however, it seems clear that you are deliberately ducking questions that you fear you cannot answer.

Oh my, it's Dr. Schlock the personal psychologist. :lol: Demonstrate your lack of fear in the Coach's Quarters then. As for deliberate ducking, well now, let's see. If I start asking you questions about things you know nothing about, and you say you don't know, is that "ducking"? Reminds me of one of my "You may be a fundy atheist if...." entries:

You may be a fundy atheist if: When you say "I don't know" you are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question.

So you toss out "pedantic" as a distraction, when the real issue is that you cannot defend your position and would like to avoid being caught in the cross-hairs.

No more than I suppose you could "defend" a "position" on 17th century Bulgarian bardic poets, Sore-On. :rofl: So then, show your bravery and make the challenge. No one looks braver than the fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread.

Jimbo:

Oh, guess what, Jimbo! I've decided to answer your questions the same way YOU answered my challenges to debate in other threads! That's right! Your favorite tactic after the old "fart and run":

**NO ANSWER**

The sound of your silence to challenges has been defeaning us! So I figure, why not show myself to be as earnest, as straightforward, as willing to engage the issues, as YOU have been? Oh, we DO admire your courage, Jimbo/Ralph/Fred/Brooks/Shawna/Barbie/Dontavian/Tiberius/Quark/Fluffy. I hope you recover from your identity crisis soon! Millions of anxious admirers await your healing!

I am afraid I am not clear on the process of procedure you went through. I am sure you are a busy man, but would you be kind enough to lay out just a few of the specifics?

Nope! :rofl: Just the same way you were kind enough not to reply to challenges in other threads. But gee:

What I find difficult to accept, however, is this idea that you, a highly educated and well-read Christian apologist, are unaware that modern scientific research does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis.

You missed the "duh" too! With careful reading and stellar comprehension like that, how else could we doubt that you have arrived at informed opinions on a variety of subjects!? :rofl: Really! I think you need to apply as a Laubach literacy tutor, your skills in this area are truly remakable!

It is too bad that you consider me a nuisance because I'm one of your greatest fans! : )

Well, you've heard the old saying about what hits fans, haven't you? :thumb: Looks like you've taken more than your share, based on the content of your posts! :spam:

There is also great wisdom in changing your position when the facts argue against it.

Too bad you won't engage me in debate on topics I know about in order to demonstrate just how much wisdom you've collected, eh? :rofl:

Epoetker

March 3rd 2003, 05:31 PM

Sauron:

Not surprised? The questioning tone of the many players in the debate and the numerous hedges and qualifications they made sure seemed surprised to me. Why do you think a study like this warranted a mention in Science if the results WEREN'T surprising? And thanks for verifying for me that science repeatedly questions its methodology in evolutionary-historical interpretation:

I take it that all these wings are developmentally similar, etc. -- if they were like, say, fish fins, dolphin flippers and penguin flippers then the case for re-invention would be much stronger, but the authors wouldn't (accurately) be discussing Dollo's Law.

So, without having read the paper, I vote b!! Screw Nature and the science media!!

So where does Dollo's Law (basically stating that organisms cannot re-evolve along lost pathways, but must find alternate routes) come in to play concerning the idea of switching regulatory genes on and off? Or does it?

It means Dollo's Law is pretty much out the window.

Not even a theory, but an informal LAW out the window, there? How well could JP Holding make his ironclad historical argumentation if every classic assumption made thereof was thrown out every so often like this? He simply chooses not to argue in areas where this happens, being quite cognizant of the high possibility for error.

Their re-evolution idea predicts that some of those wingless lineages would somehow be able to maintain the viability of the genetic machinery for wings even while those genes are not being expressed for millions (?) of years. Perhaps the sharing of gene function could accomplish some of this, but it would still be surprising to me...

Perhaps not amazed, but definitely SURPRISED. It ain't something one expects. But, since evolution as a historical theory can accomodate a very, very, VERY wide net of findings, as well as creationism (whether you call it explaining or explaining away, both theories are well able to dismiss questions of validity with "I'm sure future research will verify the efficacy of these processes...", indeed, such is the nature of incomplete scientific knowledge) using either as justifications for or attacks on the Christian faith is utterly fruitless, and you should not expect historical-critical scholars to go in that direction when they have the written records of observers and a well-tested, parsimonious, scientific method to utilize them.

I think a full understanding of the evolutionary implications will require identification of the relevant genetic pathway components and their mutations.

And of course, the unanswered questions still require reams of sequence data from lots 'n lots of specimens. Books are easier to track down and analyze than bugs are, anyway:teeth:

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 05:43 PM

Not surprised? The questioning tone of the many players in the debate and the numerous hedges and qualifications they made sure seemed surprised to me. Why do you think a study like this warranted a mention in Science if the results WEREN'T surprising?

If you read carefully the comments of the actual scientists, they already knew that this would be the case with certain organisms. Don't mistake the surprise of the news media or the general public, for surprise on the part of actual researchers.

And thanks for verifying for me that science repeatedly questions its methodology in evolutionary-historical interpretation:

[snip]

Not even a theory, but an informal LAW out the window, there?

Dollo's Law is not a "law" in the sense of the 2nd Law of Planetary Motion. It's a shorthand way of referring to a particular concept in evolution. There's another one in computers called "Moore's Law" - but is it a law? No. It's an observation that functions as a pretty reliable rule of thumb.

And, of course, if you finish reading the thread, you'll see a key point being made - that the re-emergence of wings wasn't a violation of Dollo's Law anyhow:

However, if this is so then I think the implications that some of the press (and the article authors IIRC) made regarding a "violation" of "Dollo's Law" were overblown -- highly similar wings were not being re-evolved from scratch but simply re-expressed.

From my limited understanding, this doesn’t look much different from birds retaining the potentially functional genes for making teeth and complete fibulas and separate tarsals (Hampé and Kollar & Fisher). The only problem I see is that such things would be phenotypically macro-mutations, kind of all-or-nothing, which the Dawkinsian in me doesn’t like the sound of. Organisms are highly tuned to their environment; wingless ones must have been making a good living being like that. So suddenly acquiring wings again -- even nicely working ones -- sounds like too big a jump in ‘animal space’ to work as a whole organism.

How well could JP Holding make his ironclad historical argumentation if every classic assumption made thereof was thrown out every so often like this? He simply chooses not to argue in areas where this happens, being quite cognizant of the high possibility for error.

What nonsense. On a comparative scale, the hard sciences are far less subject to revision than history, precisely because the claims are testable and repeatable to a higher degree and require far less subjectivity. If Holding were really interested in doing anything "ironclad", he would abandon textual criticism and focus exclusively in the hard sciences.

Your hero Holding avoids evolutionary discussions because he's already done the preliminary investigation, and has discovered that the literalist interpretation isn't going to win.

Epoetker

March 3rd 2003, 06:09 PM

If you read carefully the comments of the actual scientists, they already knew that this would be the case with certain organisms. Don't mistake the surprise of the news media or the general public, for surprise on the part of actual researchers.

Don't act like this has been all over the place. The general news media is rather preoccupied with a war or two, and the 'general public'(meaning, those who only read ancillary journals like Popular Science or Sientific American) is likely to simply skip over the half-page mention that it warranted in SciAm. As it is, even on a board that you claimed was filled with scientists, surprise was professed, and hedges clipped and qualified. Are they supposed to be the flighty 'general public' that overreacts to every new development with assertions of the falling sky?

On a comparative scale, the hard sciences are far less subject to revision than history, precisely because the claims are testable and repeatable to a higher degree and require far less subjectivity.

And yet, if we throw out the validity of subjective experience, we pretty much throw out our only conduit toward objective experience. And when we're considering evolutionary history of the earth in times far removed from our own, we only have:

Theory: Models constructed to account for observed characteristics.

Assumption: Cherished first principles on how the world works.

Present-day subjective experience: Also known as experimentation.

All three of those can be used when doing histori-textual criticism, but those people actually have, in addition to the previous ones:

Observations: Notes from the people actually present at the time of the event.

Thus, argumentation becomes not less but more ironclad the closer to the present day it stands and the more verified text it has going for it.

And as a side note, why are you so down on creationists to convert to old-earthism because creationist scientists did but you aren't willing to convert to Christianity because of the belief of the same scientists? They believed on the same historical textual evidence Holding does, and he is quite adept at smashing the fantasies of those present-day scientists who forget their legacies, as well as generally accepted methods of historical criticism.

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 06:28 PM

03-03-2003 @ 02:09 PM
Epoetker:

Don't act like this has been all over the place.

Bogus strawman.

I merely chided you for not realizing that there is a difference between (1) surprising the media and the average layman, and (2) surprising the scientists who actually work in the specified field of research. This announcement did (1), but not (2).

The general news media is rather preoccupied with a war or two, and the 'general public'(meaning, those who only read ancillary journals like Popular Science or Sientific American) is likely to simply skip over the half-page mention that it warranted in SciAm.

Also irrelevant. The scientists who actually work in this field are what I'm talking about. The fact that a geologist might be unaware or surprised is natural - it's not their field, and I wouldn't expect them to keep up with the current research being done there. They probably have enought to stay abreast of, in their own area of expertise, don't you think?

As it is, even on a board that you claimed was filled with scientists,

Show me where I claimed that. Then, after you're through, show me where I claimed that they were experts in teh field of population genetics and/or evolutionary biology - as opposed to astronomy, electrical engineering, or botany.

Hint - you can't show that, because I never made such a claim.

surprise was professed, and hedges clipped and qualified. Are they supposed to be the flighty 'general public' that overreacts to every new development with assertions of the falling sky?

For the most part, they're more like the educated laymen, whom I would also expect to be surprised. However, there are a few specialists in this field, who were not so amazed as you were.

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 06:37 PM

And yet, if we throw out the validity of subjective experience, we pretty much throw out our only conduit toward objective experience.

Flatly incorrect.

And when we're considering evolutionary history of the earth in times far removed from our own, we only have:

Theory: Models constructed to account for observed characteristics.

Incomplete description. We can test our models, and we do have physical/chemical laws that bracket the range of possible outcomes and hypothetical solutions to the question.

Assumption: Cherished first principles on how the world works.

Uh, incomplete. The validity of the assumptions is testable. So we don't have to rely on a stack of unprovable axioms, nor do we need to throw caution to the wind and make ad hoc assumptions.

Present-day subjective experience: Also known as experimentation.

Invalid statement. Experiments can be objectively verified. And repeated.

An example of present day subjective experience would be eyewitness testimony to a UFO, where no hard evidence existed.

All three of those can be used when doing histori-textual criticism, but those people actually have, in addition to the previous ones:

Well actually, textual criticism's claims on theory, assumption and experimentation aren't as rigid, because fewer hard principles and laws can be invoked.

Observations: Notes from the people actually present at the time of the event.

Not really. What they usually have is a written text, which *claims* to be the work of people who *claim* to be present at the time of the event. And considering:

* the unreliability of eyewitness testimony;
* the contradiction between objective testing of eyewitness claims, and the claims themselves, in many cases;
* the cultural standards for accepting the fantastic as ordinary, without regard to the source;
* the lack of rigorous examination of such claims by the alleged eyewitness;
* the bias of the original witness and/or bias of those who transmitted the account;
* the ambiguity of the descriptions, in many cases;

the case for textual criticism being "harder" than the natural sciences is truly weak.

Thus, argumentation becomes not less but more ironclad the closer to the present day it stands and the more verified text it has going for it.

None of which is supported by your argument, since there are so many weaknesses in your premises.

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 06:40 PM

03-03-2003 @ 02:09 PM
Epoetker:

And as a side note, why are you so down on creationists to convert to old-earthism because creationist scientists did but you aren't willing to convert to Christianity because of the belief of the same scientists?

I think you have me confused with someone else. I never used any arguments like this.

They believed on the same historical textual evidence Holding does, and he is quite adept at smashing the fantasies of those present-day scientists who forget their legacies, as well as generally accepted methods of historical criticism.

What's-his-name hasn't smashed any scientists - you're deluded. In fact, he's skillfully (and wisely, I might add) avoided discussion of scientific issues. Such a discussion would be damaging to his literalism, and cost him points in front of the great unseen internet audience to which he plays. :lol:

jimbo

March 4th 2003, 06:48 AM

Mr. "Holding,"

Oh, guess what, Jimbo! I've decided to answer your questions the same way YOU answered my challenges to debate in other threads! That's right! Your favorite tactic after the old "fart and run":

**NO ANSWER**

I don't consider this a debate. I am simply asking you basic questions. You are free to ask me basic questions in return. I am trying to understand how you have arrived at the opinions you now hold.

The sound of your silence to challenges has been defeaning us! So I figure, why not show myself to be as earnest, as straightforward, as willing to engage the issues, as YOU have been? Oh, we DO admire your courage, Jimbo/Ralph/Fred/Brooks/Shawna/Barbie/Dontavian/Tiberius/Quark/Fluffy. I hope you recover from your identity crisis soon! Millions of anxious admirers await your healing!

Like most people who value their time, I have no interest in arguing with you about ostriches or about your new "career."

I am afraid I am not clear on the process of procedure you went through. I am sure you are a busy man, but would you be kind enough to lay out just a few of the specifics?

Nope! Just the same way you were kind enough not to reply to challenges in other threads.

As I stated above, I have no interest in arguing with you about ostriches or about your desire to solicit other people's hard-earned money over the Internet.

If you did use some tried and true process or procedure to determine that Genesis is literally true, I am sure you would be eager to share with us what it was. I take your refusal to answer the question as an indication that there was no real process or procedure that you went through to determine that Genesis is historically accurate. I think your view of Genesis derives from a conserative interpretation of the Bible--and nothing more than that.

What I find difficult to accept, however, is this idea that you, a highly educated and well-read Christian apologist, are unaware that modern scientific research does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis.

You missed the "duh" too! With careful reading and stellar comprehension like that, how else could we doubt that you have arrived at informed opinions on a variety of subjects!? Really! I think you need to apply as a Laubach literacy tutor, your skills in this area are truly remakable!

Here is the exchange again:

Are you aware that modern science does not support Genesis as an accurate portrayal of history?

Duh, nope....(assorted emoticons)

In the future, let me know if you intend this type of response to be sarcastic rather than simply derisive.

So you are aware that modern scientific research does not support a literal Genesis. You have said that you do not believe that this is a conspiracy, but that scientists are "stupid." Are all scientists stupid, or only those whose research casts doubt on your religious beliefs?

It is too bad that you consider me a nuisance because I'm one of your greatest fans! : )

Well, you've heard the old saying about what hits fans, haven't you? Looks like you've taken more than your share, based on the content of your posts!

How old are you?

There is also great wisdom in changing your position when the facts argue against it.

Too bad you won't engage me in debate on topics I know about in order to demonstrate just how much wisdom you've collected, eh?

I wouldn't want to bring any light into your mind that might cause you to abandon your religious beliefs. I value you too much as a Christian apologist. : )

So I have determined that you accept Genesis as literal history and that you also believe that the human race has only existed on the earth for the last 4000+/- years. If either of these statements is inaccurate, feel free to correct them. If you do not correct them, I will take that to mean that they are true.

Keep up the great work!

Jimbo

jpholding

March 4th 2003, 12:24 PM

Oh, Jimbo, you are so admirable! Really! May we all have your autograph and an 8 by 10 glossy of you to hang on the inside of our freezer? Please make it out, "TO BUBBA -- SEE YOU OUTSIDE THE GATE, JIMBO".

I don't consider this a debate. I am simply asking you basic questions. You are free to ask me basic questions in return. I am trying to understand how you have arrived at the opinions you now hold.

Aw, isn't that sweet. Well, Jimbo, *we* are trying to understand how you have arrived at YOUR conclusions on subjects we have asked YOU to discuss, and what was your answer? ***SILENCE*** Or, ***fart***** -- ****clippety,-clop, clippety-clop***** Do, do, indulge us, Jimbo! We really can't bear to be without the pearls of your shining intellect any longer! We can't stand it! The sky is dark until our Fearless Leader Jimbo speaks his mind!

Like most people who value their time, I have no interest in arguing with you about ostriches or about your new "career."

Oh, please, Jimbo, don't be that way! Your opinion is so valuable! It's worth more than a million Farrell Tills! More than a thousand Dan Barkers! More than 8 Confuciuses! More than 2.6 Albert Einsteins! The flash of your consummate brilliance on these subjects would lead us through a lifetime of what would otherwise have been an unfulfilled eternity of the torment of not knowing! Please lead the way for us through the dark and gloomy corridors of ostrich ignorance! Please tell us why (or why not) it is fair for Dan Barker and Infidelguy to ask for help, but I can't! Please tell us if the Great and Wise Farrell Till is correct in his assessment! We just can't live without your humble and worthy opinion!

As I stated above, I have no interest in arguing with you about ostriches or about your desire to solicit other people's hard-earned money over the Internet.

Well then! "I have no interest in arguing with you about Genesis. I take your refusal to answer as an indication that there was no real process or procedure that you went through to determine that the Bible was wrong about ostriches, or that it is really wrong for me to solicit support while Dan Barker and Infidel Guy can. I think your view of these subjects derives from a close view of Farrell Till's rear end --and nothing more than that." Sound good? Oh, Jimbo, we all love you so much! Farrell Till saves!

In the future, let me know if you intend this type of response to be sarcastic rather than simply derisive.

Oh, Jimbo, how could you? I thought you were a master at all levels of personal communication. Please don't spoil my view of you as flawlessly perfect! I may even start to think that you really DON'T have a perfect view of the Bible when you read it as is!

Are all scientists stupid, or only those whose research casts doubt on your religious beliefs?

Are all non-profits allowed in your moral view to solicit funds, or just those whose point of view coincides with your own? rofl:

How old are you?

Old enough to write comedy for Redd Foxx, Don Rickles, and George Jefferson. Their writers are all 2 and a half years old! Now Jimbo, is that another of your questions about Genesis? We don't want you to suffer a moment lacking any information so essential to conducting your personal life.

I wouldn't want to bring any light into your mind that might cause you to abandon your religious beliefs. I value you too much as a Christian apologist.

Would I not be far more valuable to your side? Oh, Jimbo, thou brave and wise one, do not spare us your pearls, please!

If you do not correct them, I will take that to mean that they are true.

If you do not correct all of Ben Witherington's works, I will take that to mean they are true. You are surely greater than he!

Keep up the great work!

Keep up your pants! :rofl: Something is showing that you don't want to show. Have a joyous day, Brooks/Sam/Conan/Tsung/Wakko/Matilda/Bugs/Lamont/Tom/Sophie, and we really hope you recover from that multiple personality disorder!

Signed,
Jimbo

jpholding

March 4th 2003, 12:25 PM

Now back to the pink dinosaur in this room, who sang this from the corner:

What they usually have is a written text, which *claims* to be the work of people who *claim* to be present at the time of the event.

So what? I suppose you run around dropping a hermeneutic of suspicion on every text like this, do you? If so, I congratulate you at least on consistency. We all know that Skeptics would throw out anything to keep alive any excuse to reject historical testimony in the Scriptures.

And considering:

Consider carefully!

* the unreliability of eyewitness testimony;

In what contexts, and how does it affect the NT/Christianity in particular, please? Two examples will suffice.

* the contradiction between objective testing of eyewitness claims, and the claims themselves, in many cases;

Two examples again, please. Keep them culturally contextual.

* the cultural standards for accepting the fantastic as ordinary, without regard to the source;

Two more examples would be nice. Do remember the cultural standards for rejecting the fantastic based on bigoted self-superiority.

* the lack of rigorous examination of such claims by the alleged eyewitness;

Explain why this was not done for the Resurrection.

* the bias of the original witness and/or bias of those who transmitted the account;

But of course, bias-free reportage is all that can be accepted. Those biased people who say the Holocaust happened, phooey. Those biased Auschwitz prisoners. Those biased supporters of Lincoln who say he freed the slaves. All phony-baloney.

* the ambiguity of the descriptions, in many cases;

Three examples here. Ambiguity often lies in the eye of the uneducated beholder.

Dancing with the dino-saurs...

jpholding

March 4th 2003, 04:23 PM

In rides again Saur Loser, his scales falling off his back,

No, just making me roll on the floor with laughter. Please continue!

I shall. There are fleas on your belly. :lol:

Perhaps you should actually explain why websites remain unsuitable forums rather than dodging the question A true disciple of his father, FTill.

I didn't dodge the question, and I didn't say they were unsuitable. I said they weren't the only criterion. And none of this explains why you chickened out on accepting the invitation to debate with Till.

You just dodged it again! :rofl: A true disciple of his Master, Farrell "You Want Me to Pay for 90% of Your Website" Till.

Yep.

Another earth-shattering specific from Saurbraten!

You did this on several occasions. For example, re-writing your position during exchanges with Lowder, on whether ETDAV is truly an apologetic. You also did this with James Still.

What a funny imagination! I did no such thing at any time -- names are not enough, Lemon Saurball. Let's have dates, contents. Or did you conveniently pick something that was so far back that it was beyond your ability to prove more than mouth-off? On the former my position has been and always will be the same. It never changed. With Still I depersonalized the article originally against him, broke it into general pieces so as to address all potential critics -- and it was clear that I had done so. You need to show an example of where a position change was made without announcement.

Till's articles include several such examples. So do Lowder's.

Oh, the elusiveness of specificity! Sauron wanna cracker?

Skeptics are quite smart. The point here is that you are quite dishonest and unprofessional, by failing to include the link. That's what professional debaters will do; for example, William Lane Craig.

Arbitrary customs of others interest me little. No book contains a listing of complete locations of the nearest copies of competing materials; as if it were "dishonest and unprofessional" for them to not do so. Cry me a river, Polly! :rofl: No, Skeptics as a whole seem unable to use search engines; my readers, on the contrary, seem to have no problem with it. The arrogant demeanor here and further on has behind it the pompous notion that waaaaah, if they saw OUR work, they'd realize that we won! Sorry -- Mormons don't cry like that, and neither do JWs or Unitarians. You guys are the only ones so far whining for affirmative action linking.

Can't be the "towering intellect" you posture to be, without resorting to cheating.

Which would explain your fear to take me on in a one on one setting here, no? :rofl:

Till and Lowder both provide examples.

Till's "examples" have all proven moot. Where does Lowder list any?

By the way: how long are you going to
duck/dodge/evade/run/backpedal, before accepting Till's invitation to a debate?

Pfft! Not keeping up, are we? FTill and I have been debating several issues online, up until last month when he ducked his way out of one here by fussing about technicalities and demanding we install rules that were already duplicated on TWeb guidelines. Old news, Saurball!

Oh, yes. In fact, I'm formally empowered by Infidels to propose a joint venture with Theologyweb.com to sponsor a joint debate. Topic to be decided by mutual agreement. I've already cleared this with the moderators, and there's even a space set up for it on Infidels.

That's quite nice. They let you have the ring of power, did they?

Ah, yes....here it comes, folks....the weaseling, the excuses.....the rationalizations for basic ego-driven fear.

For your guys not coming here? We understand. :lol: As I said, I support this venture. We help each other, and I am obligated to TWeb. In contrast iidb.org can go suck a lemon.

The stench of cowardice comes across even via the internet - amazing, isn't it?

Check under your arm. Er, wing. :dunce:

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 02:52 AM

Sauron,

I appreciate you pointing out what I missed, I am not saying that I am not biased on things, but in this situation I do think that you are both in the wrong. I also do not like the use of certain profanities used in one of JP's post but it was not directed at anyone towards himself so that can slide. Let's try to clean up this discussion please.

Sauron, I do not choose to see blindly that JP does what you alledges he does. Personally I do not have the time to read the ETDAV articles, I could actually care less because I do not like Mcdowell so I would be more than happy to browse through what you say Holding did, I would like to see the evidence. If you provide evidence you will not have to hear from me again.

In Christ,
Blake

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 03:21 AM

03-05-2003 @ 07:17 AM
Sauron:

Blake, I hope the two quotations from Till illustrate what I have been talking about (post 27929).

And I'm looking forward to discussing archaeology with you, after I get back from traveling (next Tuesday).

Cheers.

Later on and I will pray that the Lord keeps you safe in his sovereign mercy so you can get back and we can discuss Archaeology! I will have to do some back tracking on Exodus Archaeology it has been about a year since I have read on it that is probably why I was mistaken about the Egyptians destroying evidence.

I do rememebr what I was going to say on that. It was that after each Pharoh ascended to the thrown he would destroy the works of the one before. Like I said I need to go back and study it again. I do remember that I saw both sides with very good points!

Have you read Rohl's New Chronology? I haven't , I am about ready to and I Know Kitchen doesn't particularly like his work so i will have to read up on it.

In Christ,
Blake

dizzle

March 5th 2003, 05:43 PM

Hey guys I am splitting this thread in two.. the science issues stay here, the rest are going over to the Religion 101 section under the title, "Questions for JPHolding"

dizzle

March 5th 2003, 06:26 PM

Here is the new thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=26721#post26721

Sera Sixwings

March 5th 2003, 06:32 PM

[03-05-2003 @ 07:21 AM] - Blake Reas:

Have you read Rohl's New Chronology? Hi.

There are more than a few issues with Rohl's chronology, not the least of which involves the Philistines (http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/enfilpow.html). Also, in an article hosted by ChristianAnswers.net:It is abundantly clear that, from a Palestinian perspective, Rohl's hypothesis is quite unworkable. Rather than enhancing the connections between archaeology and the Bible, his new chronology would destroy the many strong correlations that exist when the standard chronology is followed.

- see David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View From Palestine (http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/rohl.html)For general archaeology, you might wish to consider or review the works of Donald B. Redford and Amihai Mazar.

I sincerely look forward to a discussion on the archaeology of the Exodus.

jpholding

March 5th 2003, 08:12 PM

6W,

Rohl is quite active in responding to such criticisms -- has he issued one that you know of?

jimbo

March 6th 2003, 03:28 PM

Mr. "Holding,"

Your mission statement is as follows:

"Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole." (emphasis added)

Do you think it is important to incorporate the "findings" of the geological, biological and astronomical sciences in order to "properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences"? Did you do this in order to determine that Genesis was historically accurate? Did you do this to determine that the human race has only been around for, oh, four thousand years? Yes or no?

Jimmy

Snowball

March 6th 2003, 03:55 PM

03-06-2003 @ 02:28 PM
jimbo:

Mr. "Holding";

Your mission statement is as follows:

Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole. (emphasis added)

Do you think it is important to incorporate the "findings" of the geological, biological and astronomical sciences in order to "properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences"? Did you do this in order to determine that Genesis was historically accurate? Did you do this to determine that the human race has only been around for, oh, four thousand years? Yes or no?

Jimmy

Schizoid:

I'll let JP defend his mission statement (I would assume he means historical sciences since it is tough to apply the other sciences you mentioned to determining the veracity of scriptural disciplines).

I also find it ironic that you choke over JP's pseudo-name when you can't even be consistent with yours!! Why don't you just give us your real name and address and I won't consider you to be a hypocrite.

Can I ask where you get the 4000 number from? I've seen you use it a few times, and I'm just wondering if perhaps you are as confused about that as you are about your name? I know of no YE creationist that claims humans have been around for 4000 years. :hrm:

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Dee Dee moved this thread to Religion 101. You may need to re-post there to get JP's attention.

Sera Sixwings

March 6th 2003, 04:28 PM

[03-06-2003 @ 07:55 PM] - Snowball:
Schizoid:Hi. Don't you find manipulating usernames to be a bit infantile?
[03-06-2003 @ 07:55 PM] - Snowball:
Why don't you just give us your real name and address and I won't consider you to be a hypocrite.Oy veh! Don't tell me your mother named you "Snowball".
[03-06-2003 @ 07:55 PM] - Snowball:
Can I ask where you get the 4000 number from? I've seen you use it a few times, and I'm just wondering if perhaps you are as confused about that as you are about your name? I know of no YE creationist that claims humans have been around for 4000 years. :hrm:How long have humans been around according to young earth creationists?
[03-06-2003 @ 07:55 PM] - Snowball:
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Dee Dee moved this thread to Religion 101. You may need to re-post there to get JP's attention.I'm sorry, but perhaps you hadn't noticed that Dee Dee did not move the thread but, rather split it.

So, again Snoball, how long have humns been around in your opinion?

jpholding

March 6th 2003, 08:16 PM

Why Jimbo: Did you want me to answer the questions another 350 times for you? :argh:

6W: Please be patient. :smile: You're stepping into a high-context discussion with a history.

Socrates

March 6th 2003, 08:29 PM

Sera the blonde to in response to Snowball's fair characterization of Jimbo as Schizoid:
Hi. Don't you find manipulating usernames to be a bit infantile?:dufus: it seems most approporiate for someone who signs with almost every name under the sun.:doh: And a guy who can't get YEC claims right. Maybe he's confusing ~4000 BC with ~4000 years ago.

Sera Sixwings

March 6th 2003, 08:55 PM

[03-07-2003 @ 12:29 AM] - Socrates:

Sera the blonde to in response to Snowball's fair characterization of Jimbo as Schizoid: ...Hi, Socrates.

[03-07-2003 @ 12:29 AM] - Socrates:

Maybe he's confusing ~4000 BC with ~4000 years ago. That would certainly be an oversight, and I'm sure that Snowball appreciates your support.

May I ask how you feel about your Old Earth Creationist brothers and sisters?

Snowball

March 6th 2003, 11:09 PM

03-06-2003 @ 03:28 PM
Sera Sixwings:

Hi. Don't you find manipulating usernames to be a bit infantile?
Oy veh! Don't tell me your mother named you "Snowball".

Sera:

"Jimbo" signs his/her posts with a different name every time, so forgive me for not knowing how to address him/her. No, my mother didn't name me Snowball, but I'm also not the one complaining that JP Holding doesn't use his real name! :no:

How long have humans been around according to young earth creationists?

At least 6000-10,000 years, thank you for asking. Now maybe others on these boards will get it straight too.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you hadn't noticed that Dee Dee did not move the thread but, rather split it.

And perhaps you didn't notice that JP Holding doesn't dabble in the "science and archeology" section much?

So, again Snoball, how long have humns been around in your opinion?

I think I already answered that question.

Celsus

March 6th 2003, 11:26 PM

And perhaps you didn't notice that JP Holding doesn't dabble in the "science and archeology" section much?I wonder why not?

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 04:42 AM

Mr. "Holding,"

Why Jimbo: Did you want me to answer the questions another 350 times for you?

No, just once would be fine. I did not see an answer to this particular question:

Do you think it is important to incorporate the "findings" of the geological, biological and astronomical sciences in order to "properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences"? Did you do this in order to determine that Genesis was historically accurate? Did you do this to determine that the human race has only been around for, oh, four thousand years? Yes or no?

I ask this question because this is what you wrote in your mission statement:

Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole. (emphasis added)

Jimbo

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 05:31 AM

Snowball and Socrates,

Can I ask where you get the 4000 number from? I've seen you use it a few times, and I'm just wondering if perhaps you are as confused about that as you are about your name? I know of no YE creationist that claims humans have been around for 4000 years.

And a guy who can't get YEC claims right. Maybe he's confusing ~4000 BC with ~4000 years ago.

I was directing my comments to Mr. "Holding." Mr. "Holding" stated earlier in this thread that he accepted the Luke 3 genealogy for Jesus as a true genealogy. That genealogy contains approximately 75 names and goes all the way back to Adam and then God himself. A generation is about 20 years. 75 X 20 years=1500 years. Round up generously and let's say this genealogy represents 2000 years of history. According to the Bible, Jesus lived 2000 years ago. 1500 to 2000 years prior to that the first man, Adam, was created--according to this biblical genealogy. So based on this timeline, the human race is only 3500 to 4000 years old. Apparently Mr. Holding accepts the idea that the human race is only 3500 to 4000 years old.

I don't think I need to explain the fact that nothing in modern science supports the idea that the human race has existed for less than 5000 years. One of the reasons I asked Mr. "Holding" this question is because the mission statement (http://www.tektonics.org/mission.html) for his web site contains the following:

"We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences,..."

It certainly appears that Mr. Holding has not incorporated findings from the various scientific disciples in his assessment of the veracity of this biblical timeline.

Quentin

Sera Sixwings

March 7th 2003, 07:58 AM

[03-07-2003 @ 03:09 AM] - Snowball:

Sera:

At least 6000-10,000 years, thank you for asking. Now maybe others on these boards will get it straight too. Hi, and thanks for responding.

I find your wording interesting. Would you classify yourself as a Young Earth Creationist? I ask because I thought (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that YECs would reject your 'at least 6,000-10,000' and counterpose 'approximately 6,000'.

From that perspective, your 10,000 year figure is twice as wrong as the 4,000 year figure ridiculed by you above.

Have a good day.

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 08:25 AM

Sera the Blonde asks:
May I ask how you feel about your Old Earth Creationist brothers and sisters?What would you care, since you have no use for any sort of creationist view?

But to answer you anyway, I think they are misguided because they (perhaps inadvertently) place uniformitarian interpretations of scientific data over the propositional revelation of Scripture. This leads to other serious consequences, e.g. millions of years of death and suffering of animals called nephesh chayyah before Adam sinned, although the Bible says that death and suffering is the result of this fall. Also, Noah's Flood is relegated to a local event, perhaps in Mesopotamia, and the Neandertals are relegated to soul-less hominids.

Anyone who is seriously interested in the issue, unlike Hexapteryx, should see these articles on progressive creationism (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp#progressive).

dizzle

March 7th 2003, 08:32 AM

03-07-2003 @ 06:58 AM
Sera Sixwings:

Hi, and thanks for responding.

I find your wording interesting. Would you classify yourself as a Young Earth Creationist? I ask because I thought (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that YECs would reject your 'at least 6,000-10,000' and counterpose 'approximately 6,000'.

From that perspective, your 10,000 year figure is twice as wrong as the 4,000 year figure ridiculed by you above.

Have a good day.

That is incorrect. I am profoundly YEC and would have given the same issue of 6k-10k. The existence of, or length, of gaps in genealogies is an in-house dispute amongst YECs. I would have hoped you would have known that.

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 08:34 AM

Sera Sixwings:

There are more than a few issues with Rohl's chronology, not the least of which involves the Philistines. Also, in an article hosted by ChristianAnswers.net:

-----------------------------------------------------------
It is abundantly clear that, from a Palestinian perspective, Rohl's hypothesis is quite unworkable. Rather than enhancing the connections between archaeology and the Bible, his new chronology would destroy the many strong correlations that exist when the standard chronology is followed.

- see David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View From Palestine
-----------------------------------------------------------
While I like both the Christian Answers Net and Associates for Biblical Research whom they cite, I think they are dead wrong here about Rohl. I think the article Searching for Moses (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp) makes a good case for the revised chronology.

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 08:55 AM

The Multiple-personality-disordered One spruiked:

I was directing my comments to Mr. "Holding." Mr. "Holding" stated earlier in this thread that he accepted the Luke 3 genealogy for Jesus as a true genealogy. That genealogy contains approximately 75 names and goes all the way back to Adam and then God himself. A generation is about 20 years. 75 X 20 years=1500 years. Round up generously and let's say this genealogy represents 2000 years of history. According to the Bible, Jesus lived 2000 years ago. 1500 to 2000 years prior to that the first man, Adam, was created--according to this biblical genealogy. So based on this timeline, the human race is only 3500 to 4000 years old. Apparently Mr. Holding accepts the idea that the human race is only 3500 to 4000 years old. In Post# 26484, I already answered that!

A generation time in Genesis 11 was over 30 years, and far longer in Genesis 5. And from other Biblical data about the Babylonian exile, Exodus and Egyptian slavery, we can assume that the Flood was about 2500 BC and Creation about 4000 BC.

BTW, some genealogies in the Bible are clearly intended to be incomplete. E.g. Matthew's genealogy of Christ is clearly stated to be 3 groups of 14 selected names, because of the numeric value of David's name. I'm not sure about Luke's, which is Christ's genealogy via Mary. But I think there's good evidence that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are written with the intention of providing a tight chronology.

BTW, Mr Holding has provided evidence for the incompleteness of many Biblical genealogies here (http://www.tektonics.org/exodline.html). This is not an error since they were never intended to be complete.

GrayPilgrim wrote on Post# 19252:
I could agree to up to about 20,000 years old, based on how many holes there might be in the geneaologies of Genesis, but nothing on the scale of millions or billions. Dee Dee Warren wrote on Post# 29189:
That is incorrect. I am profoundly YEC and would have given the same issue of 6k-10k. The existence of, or length, of gaps in genealogies is an in-house dispute amongst YECs. I would have hoped you would have known that.I'm not going to die on a hill fighting against these two fine defenders of Biblical orthodoxy, who are perfectly correct that some orthodox YECs believe there are gaps in these lines, and that the real issue is thousands v. billions rather than the precise number of thousands.

But I've given my reasons in Post# 22112 (a reply to GP) for thinking there are no gaps in the genealogies, unlike the genealogies that have gaps as Mr Holding rightly points out. Therefore the age of humanity is about 6000 years. And as Jesus said they were there "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6), it follows that the Earth is likewise only~6000 years old.

But I can't see how the genealogies can have gaps. I know that other genealogies have intentional gaps, e.g. Mt. 1:8–9 vs 1 Chr. 3:10–12, but these others don't mention the age of the father at the birth of the next name in the line. Also, while son can mean a descendant, Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies say that X ‘begat sons and daughters’ implying that Z is likewise a son of X in this specific context. But even if Z ia not the son of X, nonetheless the age of X is given when Z is born, so there is still a tight chronology even if we granted for the purpose of the argument that it wasn't a tight genealogy.

I'm also not sure where you put the missing generations. Jude says Enoch was seventh from Adam; Seth is definitely a direct son of Adam and Eve; Lamech named Noah so Noah was his son not descendant, Shem, Ham and Japheth were definitely ordinary sons of Noah; Arphaxad was a plain son of Shem because he was born two years after the Flood; Abram was Terah's ordinary son; so there are few places to insert the gaps.

Also, how many missing generations do there have to be? Normally, people want to push the Flood right back. But since the Genesis 11 people had sons at age 35 or less, to add even 10,000 years would take over 250 missing generations.

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 12:07 PM

Celsus:

Why? Because unlike certain (ahem) freethinkers I don't assume to open my mouth on subjects I am not informed enough on. Nice dog.

Jimbo/Lakeesha/Mary/Jay/Goofy:

Why dear boy, you know the answer you'll get from me. The same one I got from you. That's right:

That was it.

We really DO hope you recover from that multiple personality disorder soon. It's hard to decide what to put on your jail cell door, you know.

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 01:14 PM

J.P. "Holding,"

Why dear boy, you know the answer you'll get from me. The same one I got from you. That's right: ___________ That was it.

It is obvious now that you think that the human race is only a few thousand years old--apparently only about 4000 years old. Are you aware that scientific research does not support this notion? In fact, scientific reseach shows that the age of the human race is much much older than this. Do you think this poses a problem for your literal interpretation of Genesis and your literal interpretation of the Luke 3 genealogy?

Clearly you have not incorporated the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of this biblical timeline because science does not support your timeline.

I would suggest that you are not adhering to your mission statement.

Billy

dizzle

March 7th 2003, 01:21 PM

Jimbo:

Are you suggesting that JP's mission statement requires him to be an expert in every field of expertise under the sun? :rofl: Have you considered the fact that he links to Answers in Genesis is in fact addressing those very issues about which you complain?

What nonsense. There are more productive outlets for your obsession you know....

Sera Sixwings

March 7th 2003, 01:30 PM

[03-07-2003 @ 12:32 PM] - Dee Dee Warren:

That is incorrect. I am profoundly YEC and would have given the same issue of 6k-10k. The existence of, or length, of gaps in genealogies is an in-house dispute amongst YECs. I would have hoped you would have known that. Thank you, Dee Dee. I'm sure that you are profoundly YEC, and I apologize for not knowing about your disputed gaps.

Actually, why I would automatically know about "an in-house dispute amongst YECs" is beyond me, but I'm willing to learn. May I ask where the 10K figure comes from, and to which class of Biblical events the 4,000 year cushion applies? Thanks.

dizzle

March 7th 2003, 01:44 PM

03-07-2003 @ 12:30 PM
Sera Sixwings:
Actually, why I would automatically know about "an in-house dispute amongst YECs" is beyond me, but I'm willing to learn. May I ask where the 10K figure comes from, and to which class of Biblical events the 4,000 year cushion applies? Thanks.

Dear Sera:

I would have thought you would have known about this subject because you spoke quite firmly about the beliefs of a certain group of people, so I would have thought that you had some background on what they actually believed. The inhouse dispute over these figures is not a little heard-of issue but is quite elementary to this discussion. In fact, in just these past two pages you have heard of or dealt with three YECs and only one holds to the strict 6K range. The other two were amenable to 10K or 20K. This is not uncommon at all.

The last part of your question was highly loaded, and I generally do not deal with loaded questions, especially when I do not have the time to devote to jousting with debating tricks. The simple answer is that the Bible does not record every second of human history, and the genealogies may not be without gaps. The additonal periods of time would be in the parts of human history that the Bible does not record, just as a biography of a person does not record his every moment, thought, or word.

Sera Sixwings

March 7th 2003, 01:48 PM

[03-07-2003 @ 12:34 PM] - Socrates:

Sera Sixwings:
I think the article Searching for Moses (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp) makes a good case for the revised chronology. Thank you, Socrates. I just scanned the article and agree that it raises some interesting points. I'll look into it further.

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 02:03 PM

Dearest Jimbo/Coco Ware/Sam Tzu/Rocketmouth/Tina,

I would suggest that you are not adhering to your mission statement.

I would suggest that you need a life. :smile: Dee Dee did answer that nicely, however. Oh dear, that you seem to prefer discussions about technicalities rather than real topics DOES tell us much, does it not?

My latest hymn to you, what do you think?

Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!
We bow and scrape before his face!
Saving us all from worse disgrace,
We sure could use a can of Mace!

You like? Maybe something in Haiku format...

Sera Sixwings

March 7th 2003, 02:32 PM

[03-07-2003 @ 06:03 PM] - jpholding:
My latest hymn to you, what do you think?You're not very good.

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 03:07 PM

Dee Dee,

Are you suggesting that JP's mission statement requires him to be an expert in every field of expertise under the sun?

No. This is not what my question implied. As I made clear before, Mr. "Holding" has stated in his mission statement that "it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences,..." In the case of the age of the human race, I believe that Mr. Holding has not incorporated the findings of modern science into properly assessing the veracity of this biblical timeline.

Have you considered the fact that he links to Answers in Genesis is in fact addressing those very issues about which you complain?

AIG does not represent the consensus of modern science. I am not sure that what AIG does would actually would qualify as science.

Hank

dizzle

March 7th 2003, 03:17 PM

03-07-2003 @ 02:07 PM
jimbo:
No. This is not what my question implied. As I made clear before, Mr. "Holding" has stated in his mission statement that "it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences,..." In the case of the age of the human race, I believe that Mr. Holding has not incorporated the findings of modern science into properly assessing the veracity of this biblical timeline.

He in fact has by relying upon authorities in the field, which you have now conceded is proper.

AIG does not represent the consensus of modern science. I am not sure that what AIG does would actually would qualify as science.

Two different statements here. The conconsensus of modern science once that leeches were the way to go. Majority view does not always make for the right veiw. And AIG defends themselves ably enough as for their scientific credentials. My point remains. You are just now complaining that you don't like the authorities he has chosen. Are you always this wiggly?

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 03:23 PM

03-07-2003 @ 06:32 PM
Sera Sixwings:

You're not very good.

Then it is just right for Jimbo worship! :bow:

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 03:30 PM

Why hello, Zeus/Hermes/Jimbo/Diana/Booga! What time do I pray to you?

In the case of the age of the human race, I believe that Mr. Holding has not incorporated the findings of modern science into properly assessing the veracity of this biblical timeline.

Well! Now isn't that just awful. YOU don't believe I have done so. I link to AiG as those who have. Well! Then what, Almighty Deity of Mustard, dost thou think -- have I however incorporated the findings of modern purveyors of other areas -- those, you know, very difficult areas you won't, oh no, discuss with me...in assessing the veracity of other parts of the Scriptures?

If you answer NO -- then what is the point? You think I fail my mission statement at every point anyway. What's so special about failing it (pfaw!) on this one issue?

If you answer YES -- then what is the point, still? Why have you not converted to my point of view?

I am not sure that what AIG does would actually would qualify as science.

Oh! Omniscient, Almighty Jimbo, enlighten us with your Almighty All Knowing All Smelling Wisdom! :bow: Take care, Brooks/Peter/Wendy/Hazel/Fiver/Blackberry/Hyzenthlay, and we hope that serious mental problem doesn't hurt too much! :yipee:

Snowball

March 8th 2003, 02:11 AM

03-07-2003 @ 07:32 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

That is incorrect. I am profoundly YEC and would have given the same issue of 6k-10k. The existence of, or length, of gaps in genealogies is an in-house dispute amongst YECs. I would have hoped you would have known that.

Thanks for answering for me Dee Dee! You rock!! :yipee:

And if Sera is really interested (which I doubt), my current study leads me to conclude that the Earth is approx. 6000 years old.

jimbo

March 8th 2003, 07:11 AM

Dancing Banana Boy,

Jimbo: In the case of the age of the human race, I believe that Mr. Holding has not incorporated the findings of modern science into properly assessing the veracity of this biblical timeline.

Holding: Well! Now isn't that just awful. YOU don't believe I have done so. I link to AiG as those who have.

Do you consider AIG-which is comitted to Christian apologetics-to be an authoratative and reliable source for scientific information? Or does your lack of knowledge about scientific matters make it difficult of impossible for you to judge the quality of AIG's claims? If so, then why do you cite AIG?

Then what, Almighty Deity of Mustard, dost thou think -- have I however incorporated the findings of modern purveyors of other areas -- those, you know, very difficult areas you won't, oh no, discuss with me...in assessing the veracity of other parts of the Scriptures?

If you answer NO -- then what is the point? You think I fail my mission statement at every point anyway. What's so special about failing it (pfaw!) on this one issue?

If you claim to "incorporate the findings" of "scientific disciples" in your appraisal of the Bible, yet you still think the human race is only 4000 years old, then you are "incorporating the findings" of some very unconventional and and obscure "scientific disciples" rather than the consensus view of modern science. I think this is important to point out.

Keep believing.

Jack

jpholding

March 8th 2003, 09:18 AM

Oh, Jimbo/Mary/Ted/Murray/Lou, I just LOVE the way you answered my "Yes" or "No" question with that third option! Beautiful! So I shall do the same for your questions about AiG. My answer is:

"There are fleas on your rump!"

I'm going to go compose another hymn to you right away!

Memnon

March 8th 2003, 06:03 PM

03-08-2003 @ 11:11 AM
jimbo:
If you claim to "incorporate the findings" of "scientific disciples" in your appraisal of the Bible, yet you still think the human race is only 4000 years old, then you are "incorporating the findings" of some very unconventional and and obscure "scientific disciples" rather than the consensus view of modern science.

Well, we could point out to the findings from such 'obscure and unconventional' journals like Science, Nature, Theor Biology and National Acad. of Science [1,2,3,4] that the human race's deletrious mutation rate is much too high to be older than "6,000 years" [4], that humans are in fact de-volving from a perfectly created form thousands of years ago (consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of several laws of science evolutionists love to hate), but we don't expect that to mean much to you, because you and I are both more than aware that the secular science world is just as biased towards evolution as Answers in Genesis is towards YEC.

[1] Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999) [ABSTRACT] (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0_fs.html&_UserReference=D82349C846B43C1514BA3BF11681390231D9)
[2] A. S. Kondrashov, Contamination of the genomes by very slightly deleterious mutations. Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor Biol 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94. [ABSTRACT] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7475094)
[3] Crow, The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997 Aug 5;94(16):8380-6.
[4] A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29.

dizzle

March 8th 2003, 06:08 PM

Hi Memnon!! Welcome to TWeb!

Stratnerd

March 8th 2003, 06:24 PM

Memnon,

When do you expect or demise and why are organisms with fast generation times still with us?

Jimmy Higgins

March 8th 2003, 06:51 PM

03-08-2003 @ 05:03 PM
Memnon:
Well, we could point out to the findings from such 'obscure and unconventional' journals like Science, Nature, Theor Biology and National Acad. of Science [1,2,3,4] that the human race's deletrious mutation rate is much too high to be older than "6,000 years"
High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids (abstract)
Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate...I don't see anything, atleast in the abstract that would indicate that there is anything that impossible going on here. It even says the number of deleterious mutations are within the upper limit allowed. In fact, it mentions that we are decendants of chimpanzees, so you are using a paper embracing evolution to disprove evolution?

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? (abstract)
This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.This paper wants to find out why things are the way they are. You almost seem to be taking the introduction (no even the hypothesis) as the conclusion. And once again, nothing in there regarding 6000 years+-, again as far as the abstract is concerned.
The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?(abstract)
Recently, the Drosophila data have been reanalyzed and the mutation-rate estimate questioned, but I believe that the totality of evidence supports the original conclusion. The most reasonable way in which a species can cope with a high mutation rate is by quasi- truncation selection, whereby a number of mutant genes are eliminated by one "genetic death." http://www.genetics.wisc.edu/CATG/crow/abstracts.html
I can't help but feel that you have misquoted this source! They clearly show what they think happens, naturally in the end, and once again nothing is alluded to about how we have only been here for 6000 years+- That they conclude in the Abstract that the mutant genes are "eliminated" clearly goes against what you are claiming the paper states! (I know if you were on the website I moderate on, there would be some issues about that conduct)

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock (as given at http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199804/0111.html)
"For example, researchers have calculated that 'mitochondrial Eve'--the woman
whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to
200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000
years old.
"No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch
from one mtDNA time zone to the other? 'I'm worried that people who are looking at very recent events, such as the peopling of Europe, are ignoring this problem.' says Laurent Excoffier, a population geneticist at the University of Geneva. Indeed, the mysterious and sudden expansion of modern humans into Europe and other parts of the globe, which other genetic evidence puts at about 40,000 years ago, may actually have happened 10,000 to 20,000 years ago--around the time of agriculture, says Excoffier. And mtDNA studies now date the peopling of the Americas at 34,000 years ago, even though the oldest noncontroversial archaeological sites are 12,500 years old. Recalibrating the mtDNA clock would narrow the difference." ~Ann Gibbons,
"Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science 279(1998), p. 29
I find it interesting how you omit the fact that the paper also claims that the same retiming of the clock shows people in the Americas "34,000" years ago! Once again, noting that Gibbons is an "evolutionist" and who's paper wasn't concluding that mankind is only 6000 years old. Another misquote on your part!

that humans are in fact de-volving from a perfectly created form thousands of years ago (consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of several laws of science evolutionists love to hate), This conclusion does not exist in any of the four papers you cite!
...but we don't expect that to mean much to you, because you and I are both more than aware that the secular science world is just as biased towards evolution as Answers in Genesis is towards YEC.Absolutely agree. Secular scientists read the sources, creationists just seem to make it up on the spot.

(Crossing fingers hoping all the codes work! :tongue: )

Kyle

March 8th 2003, 07:29 PM

FROM JIMBO: "Do you consider AIG-which is comitted to Christian apologetics-to be an authoratative and reliable source for scientific information? Or does your lack of knowledge about scientific matters make it difficult of impossible for you to judge the quality of AIG's claims? If so, then why do you cite AIG?"

Whether or not you have some sort of point with all this, you are clearly beating a dead horse. It is obvious cowardice to keep pressing J.P. Holding (ONE of the very few members on this board that is a YEC yet does not feel knowleadgable to answer objections) to debate YEC. It seems fairly clear to me that he would absolutely thrash you on almost any other subject of Christianity, so why don't you bother him with something else? Furthermore, Holding is good at defending the resurrection, which is the foundation for the Christian faith. If the resurrection is true, so is Christianity, the supposed scientific invalidity of Genesis notwithstanding. Why toss darts at Christianity when you could pull out the bazooka and blow it to smithereens? Are you perhaps as confident as I am that you will recieve a thorough kick in the behind by J.P. Holding if you take up these matters?

Besides all of this, your statement is silly anyways. For example:

"Do you consider AIG-which is comitted to Christian apologetics-to be an authoratative and reliable source for scientific information?"

You have a clear implication in here that AIG, because it is committed to Christian Apologetics, cannot offer reliable scientific information. By your logic, Jewish victims of the Holocaust are less reliable than their Holocaust-myth counterparts because the victims have an emotional attachment to the issue at hand!

Then, you go on to say:

"Or does your lack of knowledge about scientific matters make it difficult of impossible for you to judge the quality of AIG's claims?"

Uhh, I think it's fairly obvious that he wants YOU to do the judging!

Sorry for jumping in on this J.P., but I felt someone else should confirm to jimbo that his actions so far are nothing but blatant cowardice and distraction.

Memnon

March 8th 2003, 07:51 PM

03-08-2003 @ 10:51 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

I don't see anything, atleast in the abstract that would indicate that there is anything that impossible going on here. It even says the number of deleterious mutations are within the upper limit allowed.

They acknowledge that the deleterious mutation rate seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis", which is pure speculation with no real, tangible evidence to support it, and even if it did, you still need beneficial mutation fixation to outpace harmful mutation fixation in the eventual survivors. Also, they used extremely favorable assumptions for evolution to arrive at their deleterious mutation rate. Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley.

In fact, it mentions that we are decendants of chimpanzees, so you are using a paper embracing evolution to disprove evolution?

But that's impossible from the data they gathered, again showing secular bias.

http://www.genetics.wisc.edu/CATG/crow/abstracts.html
I can't help but feel that you have misquoted this source! They clearly show what they think happens, naturally in the end, and once again nothing is alluded to about how we have only been here for 6000 years+- That they conclude in the Abstract that the mutant genes are "eliminated" clearly goes against what you are claiming the paper states!

Let's see what he states as an alternative hypothesis:

"The most reasonable way in which a species can cope with a high mutation rate is by quasi- truncation selection, whereby a number of mutant genes are eliminated by one "genetic death."

There is no evidence to support that such strict truncation selection occurs in nature, and even if it did would not solve the problem. Two authors in Genetics (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297?) admit that truncation selection "seems unrealistic", but submit this view simply because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to them - that men and apes do not share a common ancestor.

I find it interesting how you omit the fact that the paper also claims that the same retiming of the clock shows people in the Americas "34,000" years ago!

I find it interesting how you omitted the fact the paper says the 34,000 figure hasn't been recalibrated.

And mtDNA studies now date the peopling of the Americas at 34,000 years ago, even though the oldest noncontroversial archaeological sites are 12,500 years old. Recalibrating the mtDNA clock would narrow the difference." ~Ann Gibbons

This conclusion does not exist in any of the four papers you cite!

But that's the reasonable conclusion drawn from the data gathered. I clearly stated that secular science is biased towards evolution, and all these alternative speculative hypotheses to try to explain everything away proves that (clay minerals creating life, anyone?).

Absolutely agree. Secular scientists read the sources, creationists just seem to make it up on the spot.

Oh how clever.

Memnon

March 8th 2003, 07:59 PM

03-08-2003 @ 10:24 PM
Stratnerd:

Memnon,

When do you expect or demise and why are organisms with fast generation times still with us?

Their deleterious mutatuion rate probably isn't as high.

Stratnerd

March 8th 2003, 08:14 PM

How do you explain it? Or could it be that there's something else going on and your orginal hypothesis is in error?

Memnon

March 8th 2003, 08:31 PM

I did give you my reasonable answer. We don't know the deleterious mutation rates of fruit flies, we do know the deleterious mutation rates for humans. And I think my hypothesis is the reasonable, scientific conclusion from the data gathered. Widely recognized geneticist James Crow acknowledges that given these mutation rates and a conventional elimination of mutations, a species with limited reproductive capacity will face "inevitable extinction" [1].

[1] J. Crow, The odds of losing at genetic roulette, Nature 397, p 293 - 294. (1999)

Stratnerd

March 8th 2003, 08:33 PM

You did not explain why other organisms with shorter lifespans might have lower rates of deleterious mutations.

is the reasonable, scientific conclusion from the data gathered emphasis mine....

the only conclusion I read is that humans were created perfectly (somehow, someway) just 6000 years ago. it seems that an equally viable hypothesis, given that things like fruit flies and the million or so other species with shorter genetic lifespans are still with us, is that there is something else going on unless you think that humans are constructed differently than other organisms, that is, we have different DNA -> phenotype dynamics not just different sequences.

ItalianGold

March 8th 2003, 08:36 PM

Kyle:You have a clear implication in here that AIG, because it is committed to Christian Apologetics, cannot offer reliable scientific information. By your logic, Jewish victims of the Holocaust are less reliable than their Holocaust-myth counterparts because the victims have an emotional attachment to the issue at hand!
Is this statement (or variations thereof) a current apologetic line? It seems I've seen something very like it floating around in here. This particular one however needs to be corrected. It is riddled with illogical conclusions. First, I'm not certain that the implication that AiG is NOT necessarily a good source of scientific data can be refuted. Be that as it may...comparing an eye-witness (Holocaust victim/survivor) testimony to an apologetic who has NO first hand knowlege or experience is just bad debate practice!

Am I missing something here? If so, please enlighten me.

Stratnerd

March 8th 2003, 08:48 PM

M-

It sounds like people have been working on the mutation rates of other organisms ....

Deng and Lynch (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9286675&dopt=Abstract)

[Houle et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1522887&dopt=Abstract)

and Crow's work: Crow JF, Simmons MJ. The mutation load in Drosophila. Vol. 3c pp. 1-35 in The genetics and biology of Drosophila edited by Ashburner, M., Carson, HL, Thompson, JN. Academic, London, NY; 1983.

Kyle

March 8th 2003, 08:48 PM

Italian Gold, I used that analogy because it was the first one that popped up into my head. The point I was making was that those with emotional attachments to the thesis they defend cannot be discluded from being able to provide accurate information. The analogy I provided, however, is perhaps a bit faulty since it involves the eyewitness aspect, as you mention. Nevertheless, I can produce a much clearer analogy for the situation at hand.

Using Jimbo's logic, we should be suspicious of any scientific information that Richard Dawkins presents, because of his emotional attachment to evolution theory. What goes around comes around, Jimbo. Creationists are not the only ones with a motivation to prove their viewpoint. So, you're reasoning about AIG's apologetic bias is faulty.

Memnon

March 8th 2003, 09:35 PM

03-09-2003 @ 12:33 AM
Stratnerd:

the only conclusion I read is that humans were created perfectly (somehow, someway) just 6000 years ago...

Created because the Law of Biogenesis says that life can't arise from non-life, Perfect because the oldest human ancestor wouldn't have had all the deleterious mutations built up over thousands of years, and 6,000 because that's what the new mitochondrial clock dates the oldest human. All conclusions based on scientific data.

It sounds like people have been working on the mutation rates of other organisms ....

Deng and Lynch

[Houle et al.

‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

- Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177.

Stratnerd

March 8th 2003, 09:44 PM

Created because the Law of Biogenesis says that life can't arise from non-life, no such thing.... unless you believe that extrapolating from a few short-term experiments to much longer terms and different conditions (we don't even know if those experiments are relevent) are valid.
new mitochondrial clock dates the oldest human.
citation please
‘Control genes ...constructs.’ how's this citation relevent?

Celsus

March 8th 2003, 10:00 PM

03-09-2003 @ 09:35 AM
Memnon:
Created because the Law of Biogenesis says that life can't arise from non-life, Perfect because the oldest human ancestor wouldn't have had all the deleterious mutations built up over thousands of years, and 6,000 because that's what the new mitochondrial clock dates the oldest human. All conclusions based on scientific data.
There is no such thing as the "Law of Biogenesis". Secondly mitochondrial clocks date the last common ancestor, not the oldest human. All misrepresentations of scientific data.
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

- Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177.
Do you even know what a homeotic mutation is?

Joel

Jimmy Higgins

March 8th 2003, 10:07 PM

03-08-2003 @ 06:51 PM
Memnon:
I find it interesting how you omitted the fact the paper says the 34,000 figure hasn't been recalibrated.My mistake. I misread that.

But that's the reasonable conclusion drawn from the data gathered. I clearly stated that secular science is biased towards evolution, and all these alternative speculative hypotheses to try to explain everything away proves that (clay minerals creating life, anyone?).But the data that they use in the papers you cite was , probably, obtained in other studies. That in these papers, they try to determine the reason for the data received in other studies. You should be citing the studies that gave the numbers for the mutations.

That these scientists are being biased towards evolution is utter sillyness. Should they just take the numbers and abandon the theory? Or should they find a solution? I find that YEC's trying to fit a global flood into a model that is merely impossible. That is bias. Trying to discover the reason for the mutation rate is hardly being biased. If there was bias, wouldn't they just ignore all the negative issues as YEC does with geology and physics in general?
Oh how clever. Thanks. :smile:

QED

March 8th 2003, 10:20 PM

03-08-2003 @ 11:51 PM
Memnon:

Let's see what he states as an alternative hypothesis:

The most reasonable way in which a species can cope with a high mutation rate is by quasi- truncation selection, whereby a number of mutant genes are eliminated by one "genetic death."

There is no evidence to support that such strict truncation selection occurs in nature, and even if it did would not solve the problem. Two authors in Genetics (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297?) admit that truncation selection "seems unrealistic", but submit this view simply because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to them - that men and apes do not share a common ancestor.

Actually, the authors admit that extreme truncation selection "seems unrealistic", but [crosses out unsubstantiated speculation about authors motivations for submitting this view] indicate that the evidence suggests some form of positive synergistic epistasis involved in the selective reduction of deleterious mutations. From your source:

This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

There is plenty else that I could harp on, but I will stop here. This could easily occupy too much of my time.

QED

March 8th 2003, 10:24 PM

P.S., for interested parties, here is the full text of the Crow paper:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/16/8380.pdf

ItalianGold

March 8th 2003, 11:18 PM

Memnon:Created because the Law of Biogenesis says that life can't arise from non-life, Perfect because the oldest human ancestor wouldn't have had all the deleterious mutations built up over thousands of years, and 6,000 because that's what the new mitochondrial clock dates the oldest human. All conclusions based on scientific data.
Your statements are just wrong.

You will note from the swift response here that any attempt to make unsupported "scientific" statements will be greeted with disbelief. I'd prefer to think that you are just naive or misread or are quoting from another erroneous source, rather than to believe you are being deliberately misleading. In either event, I'd be MOST interested in actual quotes regarding a "new mitochondrial clock."

If you are going to toss around terms which you intend to sound scientific, be prepared to use scientific methods and be able to name your sources.

jpholding

March 9th 2003, 08:03 AM

Nice to see this thread proceeding well without it's namesake. I guess Jimbo took his ball and went home.:shifty:

jimbo

March 9th 2003, 11:13 PM

Mr. "Holding,"

Do you consider Answers in Genesis to be an authoritative source for scientific information? If so, how did you determine this?

Are you aware that the position of AIG on the age of the human race does not represent the consensus view of mainstream science? If so, why do you defer to this organization? Does it have anything to do with the fact that this organization shares your religious views?

I just LOVE the way you answered my "Yes" or "No" question with that third option!

Did your "question" even make sense? Here it is again:

...have I however incorporated the findings of modern purveyors of other areas -- those, you know, very difficult areas you won't, oh no, discuss with me...in assessing the veracity of other parts of the Scriptures?

What do you mean by "modern purveyers"? Here is a definition for purveyers:

pur·vey·or ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vr)
n.

One that furnishes provisions, especially food.
One that promulgates something: a purveyor of lies.

What do you mean by "modern purveyors"?

If you answer NO -- then what is the point? You think I fail my mission statement at every point anyway. What's so special about failing it (pfaw!) on this one issue?

What do you mean by "modern purveyors"?

If you answer YES -- then what is the point, still? Why have you not converted to my point of view?

I don't know. Why would I agree with your point of view simply because you have incorportated the views of "modern purveyors" (one that furnishes food, one that promulgates something) into your statements?

Explain.

Then we can get back to examining your biblical literalism.

Randolf

Stratnerd

March 9th 2003, 11:39 PM

Maybe I'm wrong but the 97 Crow paper deals with an individual's age and the Pr of mutation not the age of the species. So I don't see how that citation is particularly relevent to the Pr of species death via mutation load.

Sheepdog

March 10th 2003, 03:03 AM

umm...

03-08-2003 @ 05:03 PM
Memnon:

... that the human race's deletrious mutation rate is much too high to be older than "6,000 years" [4], that humans are in fact de-volving from a perfectly created form thousands of years ago (consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of several laws of science evolutionists love to hate), ...

for the record, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics specifically deals with an energy phenomenon known as entropy ("in a closed system with a form of energy tranfer happening, some energy is always tranfered into a forn known as entropy, which is disorder in molecules. this energy for all practical purposes becomes useless), so it is a categorization error to apply it to Evolution.

please see here:
[edit: questionable source omitted]

Sheepdog

March 10th 2003, 03:36 AM

here, i found a formal explaination of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is not from a whacko-"aliens seeded the earth" website:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/thermody_TheSecondLawofThermodynamics.asp

jpholding

March 10th 2003, 12:59 PM

All Hail Jimbo, God of All! :bow: We wuv you Jimbo!

Do you consider Answers in Genesis to be an authoritative source for scientific information? If so, how did you determine this?

Uh uh uh! I no answer Jimboo's questions as long as he refoose to answer all mine from before! :em7:

Did your "question" even make sense?

Yes indeedy do it did. You seem be only man here with comprehension pwoblem. :smile: We expwane AFTER you answer me YES or NO question with YES or NO. No pwetend be dense, Jimboo, it no pway well in Peoria. :rofl: Take care, Brooks/Mabel/Joash/Cassandra/Dale, and we DO so hope you get over that disorder soon. You eat up half of mental health care budget in home state!

jimbo

March 10th 2003, 06:05 PM

King of Komedy,

[yawn] I will ask you again: Do you consider Answers in Genesis to be an authoritative source for scientific information? If so, how did you determine this?

Are you aware that the position of AIG on the age of the human race does not represent the consensus view of mainstream science? If so, why do you defer to this organization? Does it have anything to do with the fact that this organization shares your religious views?

Uh uh uh! I no answer Jimboo's questions as long as he refoose to answer all mine from before!

You question hinges on what appears to be a nonsensical term. What do you mean when you refer "modern purveyors" and why would I accept your point of view based on the fact that you incorportate the view of "modern purveyors" into you statements? If you dashed off this question to me in haste and made a poor word choice, I would understand and would encourage you to amend your statement.

All the Best,

Miguel

jpholding

March 10th 2003, 06:57 PM

Hail Jimboo full of grace
We love throw pies in his face!

We wuv you Jimboo!

I will ask you again:

Hello there, my name is Frame!
Ask me again and I'll tell you the same! :rofl:

I know where Jimbo lives:

1122

Boogie Woogie Avenue!

understand and would encourage you to amend your statement.

Aw, Jimbo/Bubba/Bertha/Cody/Jack! We wuv you! I would encourage you to seek proper medication for that terrible personality disorder! Not only does it make you think you are 567422 different people a day, it also makes you unable to sink answers into your much-too thick head! Wheee hee! Psst! Look up NO in the dictionary!

Oh! We found a class picture with you in it. Guess which you are!

:bonk: :argh: :dunce: :cheers: :duh: :eww: :doh: :xmm:

Sher

March 10th 2003, 11:47 PM

03-09-2003 @ 10:13 PM
jimbo: What do you mean by "modern purveyors"?03-10-2003 @ 05:05 PM
jimbo: You question hinges on what appears to be a nonsensical term. What do you mean when you refer "modern purveyors" and why would I accept your point of view based on the fact that you incorportate the view of "modern purveyors" into you statements?Jimbo, have you tried to enter the phrase into a search engine? Or are you being retorical in asking this question? If not, the context is self-explanatory.

Socrates

March 11th 2003, 12:20 AM

Celsus hits a new low:
There is no such thing as the "Law of Biogenesis".So Pasteur was wrong? Perhaps Biology Today, 2nd ed., pp. 3-7 was wrong to claim that the Law of Biogenesis became the "dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent." There are no known exceptions, making this among the best attested laws in science. Conversely, chemical evolution aka abiogenesis is based on materialistic FAITH. So Jimmy Higgins is deluding himself if he thinks that the atheism of Dawko is not a major motivating factor for his evolutionary just-so story-telling.Secondly mitochondrial clocks date the last common ancestor, not the oldest human. All misrepresentations of scientific data.As if creationists didn't know. They give the correct account in A shrinking date for ‘Eve’ (A shrinking date for ‘Eve’ ), and even point out that this mtEve was not necessarily the only woman living at the time. But the mt-clock ticks much faster than previously thought -- see Loewe, L and Scherer, S. ‘Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422–423, November 1997.

Socrates

March 11th 2003, 12:28 AM

Italian Pyrite to Memnon:
Your statements are just wrong.As if we should take the word of a demonstrable scientific ignoramus like IP, who is frequently guilty of equivocation and straw man arguments.

You will note from the swift response here that any attempt to make unsupported "scientific" statements will be greeted with disbelief. I'd prefer to think that you are just naive or misread or are quoting from another erroneous source, rather than to believe you are being deliberately misleading. In either event, I'd be MOST interested in actual quotes regarding a "new mitochondrial clock."But the diehard God-haters and their compromising churchian allies aren't even interested in documented quotes, judging by their filibustering about a Haldane quote which was crystal clear as it stands.
If you are going to toss around terms which you intend to sound scientific, be prepared to use scientific methods and be able to name your sources.But they would be wasted on somone like you who lacks the capability to understand them.

Celsus

March 11th 2003, 04:26 AM

Hello Socrates,
03-11-2003 @ 12:20 PM
Socrates:
So Pasteur was wrong? Perhaps Biology Today, 2nd ed., pp. 3-7 was wrong to claim that the Law of Biogenesis became the "dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent." There are no known exceptions, making this among the best attested laws in science. Conversely, chemical evolution aka abiogenesis is based on materialistic FAITH.
Oh... You mean Pasteur's observations regarding rotting flesh. That's not a law in the strict sense, because it only applies to specific circumstances. The fact that you think it is a law either shows a dismal understanding of scientific method, or a simplistic regurgitation of what you were taught in high school. Are self-replicating polymers "life"? Abiogenesis is a completely new and different field from Pasteur's proof against spontaneous generation of life from decaying matter.
Secondly mitochondrial clocks date the last common ancestor, not the oldest human. All misrepresentations of scientific data.As if creationists didn't know. ...snip...
Oh dear, ad hominems and comprehension problems as well? Memnon didn't know that. If you bothered to read what I was replying to, and which I specifically quoted in my reply, he wrote:
Perfect because the oldest human ancestor wouldn't have had all the deleterious mutations built up over thousands of years, and 6,000 because that's what the new mitochondrial clock dates the oldest human. All conclusions based on scientific data.
My statements to Memnon stand.

Now Socrates, you've already agreed that you accept natural selection. The outstanding issue appears to be mutations and new information. Care to refute my post, or do you wish to stick your head in the sand and become the evolution evader instead?

Joel

Socrates

March 11th 2003, 05:04 AM

Socrates:
So Pasteur was wrong? Perhaps Biology Today, 2nd ed., pp. 3-7 was wrong to claim that the Law of Biogenesis became the "dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent." There are no known exceptions, making this among the best attested laws in science. Conversely, chemical evolution aka abiogenesis is based on materialistic FAITH. Oh... You mean Pasteur's observations regarding rotting flesh.No, his observation with sterilized glass vessels with very long curved necks that would let air through but trap bacteria. You've confused him with Francesco Redi :dufus:That's not a law in the strict sense, because it only applies to specific circumstances.Nonsense, it's every bit a law, since it has no known exceptions. Perhaps you'd like to document one? The fact that you think it is a law either shows a dismal understanding of scientific method, or a simplistic regurgitation of what you were taught in high school. Then abuse the writers of the text books! Although why they would consider an ignoramus like you is beyond me. Are self-replicating polymers "life"? Whatever do you mean? Rebek's molecule? Abiogenesis is a completely new and different field from Pasteur's proof against spontaneous generation of life from decaying matter.Rubbish, it's spontaneous generation in new garb. And dogmatic evolutionists believe in chemical evolution on FAITH, then seek to find evidence for it. They haven't found the slighest, of course.
Now Socrates, you've already agreed that you accept natural selection. So what else is new? The outstanding issue appears to be mutations and new information. Yep. And far too many evolutionists invoke i"beneficial mutations as proof, even though they are nformation-LOSING. [list]Care to refute my post, or do you wish to stick your head in the sand and become the evolution evader instead?What's there to refute? :dunce:

Socrates

March 11th 2003, 05:13 AM

[Quote]Kyle:
You have a clear implication in here that AIG, because it is committed to Christian Apologetics, cannot offer reliable scientific information. By your logic, Jewish victims of the Holocaust are less reliable than their Holocaust-myth counterparts because the victims have an emotional attachment to the issue at hand!
The logic-impaired Italian Pyrite replied:

Is this statement (or variations thereof) a current apologetic line? It seems I've seen something very like it floating around in here. This particular one however needs to be corrected. It is riddled with illogical conclusions. First, I'm not certain that the implication that AiG is NOT necessarily a good source of scientific data can be refuted. Be that as it may...comparing an eye-witness (Holocaust victim/survivor) testimony to an apologetic who has NO first hand knowlege or experience is just bad debate practice!Actually it was excellent debating practice. Kyle was demonstrating that bias does NOT mean error, and he chose a graphic example.

Further, Holocaust deniers and Genesis & Resurrection deniers make the same fundamental error: disallowing reliable eye-witness testimony in favor of circumstantial evidence.

jimbo

March 11th 2003, 05:49 AM

Mr. Holding,

You use Answers In Genesis as your source for scientific information. What was the process you went through to determine that this organization was a reliable source of scientific information? Are you aware that the 'scientific" opinions of the people in AIG are not shared by most scientists? Are you aware that the idea that the human race is only 4000 years old is not supported by mainstream science? Do you ever think about the fact that your views about Genesis are not supported by modern science? Do you care?

Why should one accept your position simply because you incoporate the views of "modern purveyors" into your statements?

I am going to be gone for a while after tomorrow but I will be back later this month. I hope to learn more about your Bible literalism when I return.

Keep The Faith,

Excaliber

jpholding

March 11th 2003, 07:52 AM

Why Jimbo,

You read the Inquirer! Noe we know eher your scholarship comes from! :dunce:

We hope you get healed on that trip to Oral Roberts U!

Jimmy Higgins

March 11th 2003, 10:05 AM

03-11-2003 @ 06:52 AM
jpholding:

Why Jimbo,

You read the Inquirer! Noe we know eher your scholarship comes from! :dunce:

We hope you get healed on that trip to Oral Roberts U! Why with all the sarcasm? The poster asked a question as to how you can appreciate the information offered by AIG when it seems AIG disagrees with virtually all known "mainstream" science. I think it is a good question. By what authority, in your opinion, allows AIG to make such rather exotic claims? The question isn't being critical towards you, its more on a point wondering what your process is for determining what reported "science" is true and what isn't. I'd appreciate a reply, thanks.

Snowball

March 11th 2003, 11:26 AM

03-11-2003 @ 09:05 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Why with all the sarcasm? The poster asked a question as to how you can appreciate the information offered by AIG when it seems AIG disagrees with virtually all known "mainstream" science. I think it is a good question. By what authority, in your opinion, allows AIG to make such rather exotic claims? The question isn't being critical towards you, its more on a point wondering what your process is for determining what reported "science" is true and what isn't. I'd appreciate a reply, thanks.

There is a history here between the two of them, that's why -- check it out.

Snowball

March 11th 2003, 11:47 AM

03-11-2003 @ 09:05 AM
Jimmy Higgins:
I'd appreciate a reply, thanks.

Whatever the answer will be, it won't be good enough for someone like you!

By the way, Jimmy -- nice web page! I found this especially touching: http://the_champions_mls.tripod.com/bible/prayerrequests.htm

What a compassionate, sensitive guy! :no:

Jimmy Higgins

March 11th 2003, 11:55 AM

03-11-2003 @ 10:47 AM
Snowball:
Whatever the answer will be, it won't be good enough for someone like you!Like me? You mean as in a civil engineer or as an atheist or as some person you don't know personally at all?
As an engineer, methods of interpreting data is critical to me.
As an atheist, it is important to denote where information seems to be tainted through history and psychology.
As a person you don't know at all, I think the truth is essential.

So trust me, the answer to the question is certainly important to any persona of me you wish to drag out here. So I'm still quite interested in the answer.

By the way, Jimmy -- nice web page! I found this especially touching: http://the_champions_mls.tripod.com/bible/prayerrequests.htmDidn't you check out the bible? I'm still working on that, though. Didn't you check out my Photography section, with lots of interesting pictures of waterfalls from Southern Ontario, or were you only interested in what you thought would be good to try and smear my reputation?

What a compassionate, sensitive guy!Thanks.

Snowball

March 11th 2003, 12:08 PM

03-11-2003 @ 10:55 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Like me? You mean as in a civil engineer or as an atheist or as some person you don't know personally at all?

I mean as the type of person that would have a web site such as yours. The character (or lack of it, I should say) you display there, regardless of your occupation or belief system, says it all. I'm genuinely surprised that someone old enough to be an engineer is the creator of that site.

Didn't you check out the bible? I'm still working on that, though.

I'll repeat a quote already posted on this thread, but obviously applies to you: "There is great wisdom is not speaking authoritatively about subjects you know nothing about. Unfortunately freethinkers do not always learn this lesson."

Snowball

March 11th 2003, 12:13 PM

03-11-2003 @ 10:55 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Were you only interested in what you thought would be good to try and smear my reputation?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You smear your reputation quite well all by yourself!

Goochdad

March 11th 2003, 12:15 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:04 AM
Socrates:

And far too many evolutionists invoke i"beneficial mutations as proof, even though they are nformation-LOSING. [list]Care to refute my post, or do you wish to stick your head in the sand and become the evolution evader instead?What's there to refute? :dunce:

Refute this (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=29887#post29887) which you've been conveniently ignoring. Celsus has explained quite nicely, with references to excellent scientific articles, how information IS increasing in observed organisms.

Quit stalling and address this issue, SockRace. Oh, but I expect you'll just throw a lot of ad hominem, moving of goal posts, and, oh, some more ad hominem. (yawn)

Celsus

March 11th 2003, 12:15 PM

My dear frazzled Socrates,
03-11-2003 @ 05:04 PM
Socrates:
Oh... You mean Pasteur's observations regarding rotting flesh.No, his observation with sterilized glass vessels with very long curved necks that would let air through but trap bacteria. You've confused him with Francesco Redi :dufus:
Of course. My mistake, and thanks.
That's not a law in the strict sense, because it only applies to specific circumstances.Nonsense, it's every bit a law, since it has no known exceptions. Perhaps you'd like to document one?
This clearly points to me that you haven't the faintest how proofs and laws are established under the scientific method. Does the non-existence of unicorns imply we need to set up a Law of Unicorn Non-existance?
The fact that you think it is a law either shows a dismal understanding of scientific method, or a simplistic regurgitation of what you were taught in high school. Then abuse the writers of the text books! Although why they would consider an ignoramus like you is beyond me.
My what an imaginative insult. How long did it take you to think up that one? Hm? As for your credentials as a "scientist" who is unable to spot flaws in textbooks, well, what can I say?
Are self-replicating polymers "life"? Whatever do you mean? Rebek's molecule?
How about a self-replicating ligase ribozyme (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/20/12733)?
Abiogenesis is a completely new and different field from Pasteur's proof against spontaneous generation of life from decaying matter.Rubbish, it's spontaneous generation in new garb. And dogmatic evolutionists believe in chemical evolution on FAITH, then seek to find evidence for it. They haven't found the slighest, of course.
That's because Pasteur could never have foreseen the fields of microbiology, pre-biotic chemistry, etc. He did disprove that vermin spontaneously generate from trash heaps--he knew nothing of the conditions surrounding a young earth (and by that, we mean half a billion years old). Why exactly does Pasteur's words stand for all time anyway? Does Newton's mechanics disprove the theory of relativity? It's a completely different thing altogether! If you are genuinely interested in some recent research in this area, try these:

Some hard science:
Biochemical evolution II: Origin of life in tubular microstructures on weathered feldspar surfaces (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/26/15173)

Self-organizing biochemical cycles (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/23/12503)

Images of evolution: Origin of spontaneous RNA replication waves (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/9/4191)

Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/8/3868)

Directed evolution of polymerase function by compartmentalized self-replication (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/8/4552)

The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/14/7933)

A summary of conditions:
The Origin of Life (http://www.science.siu.edu/microbiology/micr425/425Notes/14-OriginLife.html)

A pop-science summary:
The Beginnings of Life on Earth (http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html)

Isn't this sort of stuff fascinating? Obviously there is a lively debate going on about all of this, which is exactly what strengthens the scientific method. Or perhaps you'd care to remind all these scientists about Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis and how they're wasting their time. I'm sure they'd be grateful to hear it.
Now Socrates, you've already agreed that you accept natural selection. So what else is new? The outstanding issue appears to be mutations and new information. Yep. And far too many evolutionists invoke i"beneficial mutations as proof, even though they are nformation-LOSING. [list]Care to refute my post, or do you wish to stick your head in the sand and become the evolution evader instead?What's there to refute? :dunce:
Because I have clearly pointed you to data where hard evidence is to be found regarding new information. Sticking your head in the sand isn't a disproof. I thought you were an evolution eviscerator?

Joel

jpholding

March 11th 2003, 12:37 PM

Yo Jimmy,

Snowball tells true. Jimbo is basically trying to waste my time and has in the past refused to answer my own questions or engage me in debate. Anyways this thread seems to have its own separate life now, so I'm desubscrivbing.

Epoetker

March 11th 2003, 05:49 PM

:read:
Isn't this sort of stuff fascinating? Obviously there is a lively debate going on about all of this, which is exactly what strengthens the scientific method. Or perhaps you'd care to remind all these scientists about Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis and how they're wasting their time. I'm sure they'd be grateful to hear it.

My view is that, while the goals of such work are misguided and unattainable, the work itself, like any study of chemical reactions, is always of value to those interested in them for more present-day purposes. The law of unintended consequences saves any careful scientific endeavor from being a waste of time. Now, considering the first of your references:

1. The self replicating ribozyme.

A self-replicating system was developed based on a ribozyme that catalyzes the assembly of additional copies of itself through an RNA-catalyzed RNA LIGATION reaction.

If I were looking for the right kind of ribozyme to survive and replicate itself on the early earth, it would have POLYMERASE activity as well as LIGASE. Connecting two RNA strands together is one of the simpler things, chemically and enzymatically speaking, than adding RNA nucleotides in a stepwise fashion to a growing chain. Lets take an example:

HOWAREYOUDOING?
...............................

DNA polymerase would replicate it like this:

HOWAREYOUDOING?
H.............................

HOWAREYOUDOING?
HO..........................

etc., until HOWAREYOUDOING? was completely replicated. Assuming that the prebiotic soup was swimming with plenty of H's, O's, W's, etc., then the demonstration of this molecule might have some merit for the undirected, deterministic, prebiotic OOL. However...

The R3C ligase ribozyme was redesigned so that it would ligate TWO substrates to generate an exact copy of itself, which then would behave in a similar manner.

In other words, this does not even attempt to polymerize from widely available components, it just takes the equivalent of: HOWARE and YOUDOING? and joins them together. Now, if the environment is swimming with HOWARE and YOUDOING?, that's fine. However, if, as would much more likely be the case, it's just a bunch of free letters, no replication will take place because no substrate to ligate is available. Now, in the laboratory where this experiment was performed, the two ligate-able RNA strands were readily provided for experimental purposes. However, the presumption that such specific molecular sequences would be readily available in the prebiotic soup (in sufficient chemical concentration) seems extremely improbable, to put it mildly:hrm:

Additionally:

Exponential growth was limited, however, because newly formed ribozyme molecules had greater difficulty forming a productive complex with the two substrates.

In other words, even though all you needed to do was ONE reaction connecting two strands, rather than the laborious, directed, exacting, and complex work of polymerase + replication, harmful mutations STILL crept in to mess things up! Not a very strong demonstration, if you ask me...

I'll take critical looks at the rest of the references as I have time.:read:

jimbo

March 11th 2003, 09:23 PM

Mr. "Holding,"

Snowball tells true. Jimbo is basically trying to waste my time and has in the past refused to answer my own questions or engage me in debate.

If you would ask coherent, reasonable questions, I will answer them. I did not understand your last question. Explain to me what a "modern purveyor" is and why I should accept your statements if I agree that you incorportate the views of modern purveyors into your statements. As far as debating goes, I am not interested in arguing with you about ostriches or your Internet charity fund.

The reason I keep asking you these questions is because I want to try and understand why you are a young earth creationist when all the relevant findings in the natural sciences argue against young earth creationism. Do you totally disregard this fact? Do you think that the scientists in these fields, many of whom are Christians, are in a conspiracy against conservative Christians such as yourself?

Just to recap: You believe that the genealogy in Luke is accurate and true, and this genealogy puts the creation of the first human at about 2000 BC. So you apparently believe that the human race is only 4000 years old. I have given you the opportunity to tell me that this is NOT what you believe, yet you have never denied that this is what you believe. Furthermore, you defer science questions to Answers in Genesis, which is a young earth creationist organization. You explain that you are not terribly knowledgable about scientific matters, yet you seem to feel that you are knowledgable enough to determine that AIG is a reliable source of scientific knowledge. (It isn't.)

Anyways this thread seems to have its own separate life now, so I'm desubscrivbing.

Well, time permitting, I will keep trying to get answers to these questions. I will have limited access to a computer for the next couple of weeks.

Cheerio,

Hank

wienerdog

March 11th 2003, 09:52 PM

Don't diss jimmyhiggins. He's a nice guy. I haven't checked out his website, but I have interacted with him on another board.

dizzle

March 12th 2003, 08:49 AM

Okay guys this thread is beginning to get a bit out of hand, and is being subject to moderator review. Please no further posting until that is complete.

Epoetker

March 12th 2003, 01:27 PM

More demonstrations on why Abstract Titles Do Not a Pro-prebiotic OOL Story Make:

Tubular microstructures:

First, they acknowledge the obvious:

Mineral surfaces were important during the emergence of life on Earth because the assembly of the necessary complex biomolecules by random collisions in dilute aqueous solutions is implausible.

But-still some hope!:

Most silicate mineral surfaces are hydrophilic and organophobic and unsuitable for catalytic reactions, but some silica-rich surfaces of partly dealuminated feldspars and zeolites are organophilic and POTENTIALLY catalytic.

So, to the key observation:

Weathered alkali feldspar crystals from granitic rocks at Shap, north west England, contain abundant tubular etch pits, typically 0.4-0.6 µm wide, forming an orthogonal honeycomb network in a surface zone 50 µm thick, with 2-3 × 106 intersections per mm2 of crystal surface.

Now, this is a highly interesting find. Especially given that:

Etch features on weathered alkali feldspar from Shap match the shape of overlying soil bacteria.

Um...perhaps we should be studying THESE currently available bacteria for their biochemical role in creating those pits? Just because this is supposedly true:

Surviving metamorphic rocks demonstrate that granites and acidic surface water were present on the Earth's surface by ~3.8 Ga.

...wouldn't a proper scientific inquiry on the etches at least involve the elucidation of any acid-generating protein structures in the very accessible PRESENT-DAY bacteria? Y'know, so you could see if the sequences are present among the oldest known bacteria(and archaea,) whether simpler types exist, that sort of thing? Rather than simply assuming very quickly that:

The honeycomb would have provided access to various mineral inclusions in the feldspar, particularly apatite and oxides, which contain phosphorus and transition metals necessary for energetic life.

Uhhh...reduction of stable non-organic oxides is generally chemically hard to do, often requiring energy input via either a lot of energetic enzymatic reactions (vis-a-vis the glycolytic cycle,) or the utilization of more reactive(and generally rarer) metals to replace electrons. Does the full article have anything more than a fuzzy conception of what sort of chemicals would be luckily available in a putative prebiotic environment to make this hypothesis, like, work?

The organized environment would have protected complex molecules from dispersion into dilute solutions, from hydrolysis, and from UV radiation.

Since the removal of complex molecules from the influence of the outside dilute solution also removes them from any new and unique complex molecules created by the UV radiation, the only available chemical catalyzer would be the surface of the feldspar, which would likely get really crowded, really quickly in the sub-micron corridors that are somehow supposed to organize these biomolecules into replicable sequences. How many self-replicating riboszymes(even the ones whose replicability lies only in ligating two readily available halves of itself) have been formed from short, repeated patterned sequences? And how many are nice enough to fold themselves repeatedly into the correct shape in a submicron corridor clogged with the corpses of the unsuccesful sequences that would form aggregated blockages much more readily than specific catalytic surfaces?

Sub-micrometer tubes in the honeycomb might have acted as rudimentary cell walls for proto-organisms, which ultimately evolved a lipid lid giving further shelter from the hostile outside environment.

Okay, okay, a sheltering cell wall is nice, but once this scenario happens:

A lid would finally have become a complete cell wall permitting detachment and flotation in primordial "soup."

...how will that cell interact with the primordial soup that it "evolved" the cell wall to protect itself from? Transmembrane proteins necessary for letting digestable biomolecules inside the cell would have little conceivable function in a mineral-sealed compartment.

In short, this idea runs into far too many chemical roadblocks to be explanatory. Extreme experimental elaboration is needed to have it even begin to pass feasability.

Stratnerd

March 12th 2003, 02:59 PM

E-

Thoughtful criticisms... have you ever considered bringing them up with the authors?

dizzle

March 12th 2003, 03:04 PM

LOL!!! I was so completely ignored!! Hmmm... such much for my Super Admin powers huh?

Goochdad

March 12th 2003, 03:26 PM

lol, Dee Dee! That reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon, where the computer expert is summoned to fix things, and his 'solution' is to wave his arms and yell to the computer

"I summon my powers of CERTIFICATION"

When it doesn't work, he said that's all he learned in his training course.

Did you forget to yell at your computer, "I summon my powers of administration" ?

:tongue:

dizzle

March 12th 2003, 03:36 PM

I think I forgot that step.

Epoetker

March 12th 2003, 04:37 PM

Thoughtful criticisms... have you ever considered bringing them up with the authors?

Actually, these sorts of criticisms are made roundly by the authors and supporters of one particular OOL theory against each other, so it's likely that they've A) Probably heard them already and B) would be likely to beg them off with "this is just one of MANY possible OOL theories, and is not intended as an all-consuming explanation but merely a hypothesis for others to integrate into the wider picture of what the chemical scenario back then was, etc."

Although I am thinking of a project wherein I compare scientific OOL theories to scientific theories on the Flood, as I have seen exactly the same type of supporting and refuting arguments made in defense of various aspects. But that's another post altogether.

BTW-analysis like this is par for the course at ARN. The ligating ribozyme sounds almost exactly like the Ghadiri ligase, which the ever-ineffable DNAUnion made the same refutation of.

Socrates

March 12th 2003, 10:04 PM

Epoetker is really on the ball :thumb: Most astute criticisms of the surface catalysis and ligase arguments :yipee:

May I also point out that the self-replicating ligase seems similar in principle to the self-replicating polypeptide in http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3974.asp: Self-replicating Peptides? I.e. as Epoetker pointed out, the thing Celsus cited "replicates" only if precisely matching half segments of RNA are available, and this 32-unit peptide likewise "replicates" only if other precisely matching 15-unit and 17-unit segments are readily available. They must also be activated and have the right chirality.

The RNA "replicator" has the following additional problems noted in the article, because for RNA to form at all, the following assumptions must be true: A pool of exclusively ‘right-handed’ ribose molecules could be produced, separated from a jumble of other sugars, and remain stable long enough; the bases could be produced in large quantities; and a high concentration of phosphate (PO4^3-) would be in solution rather than precipitated out.
Ribose could combine with the bases and phosphate to produce β-D-ribonucleotides.
These β-D-ribonucleotides could spontaneously produce RNA polymers of the proper form.
The evidence of real chemistry, as opposed to materialist-spawned faith in chemical evolution, is against these. See The RNA World: A Critique http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm. Note that one co-author is Dean Kenyon, a leading expert in chemical evolutionary research who was eventually convinced (mainly by the book The Creation of Life by YEC Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith) that no chemical evolutionary theory was adequate. But he is verboten from teaching that to his students!

Also, there seems to be no plausible prebiotic synthesis for cytosine -- see Origin of Life: Instability of building blocks http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4148.asp

dizzle

March 12th 2003, 10:11 PM

Hey Socrates :thumb: Great post!!

Sheepdog

March 13th 2003, 05:06 PM

:lol:

at least you tried to wrap this thread up, Dee Dee

dizzle

March 13th 2003, 05:15 PM

LOL!! Well things do seemed to have simmered down a bit.. and everyone has taken a deep breath, so carry on (not like anyone listened to me before anyway). But I would ask the posters to consider whether this thread is really necessary. The person to whom it was originally directed (JPHolding) has indicated that he has unsubscribed from it, and it is now basically another conversation on creation science and young earth issues which I think are pretty well covered in other threads. Persons who may be interested in this material may not ever check out this thread. Just a thought.

jimbo

April 4th 2003, 03:25 PM

Mr. "Holding,"

I'll repeat my question:

You use Answers In Genesis as your source for scientific information. What was the process you went through to determine that this organization was a reliable source of scientific information? Are you aware that the "scientific" opinions of the people in AIG are not shared by most scientists? Are you aware that the idea that the human race is only 4000 years old is not supported by mainstream science? Do you ever think about the fact that your views about Genesis are not supported by modern science? Do you care?

Larry

Pilgrim

April 4th 2003, 03:35 PM

Jimbo, I refer you to the post directly above your last.

jpholding

April 4th 2003, 04:48 PM

Pilgrim,

I'm afraid Jimbo is illiterate. He's not even sure what his name is. :brow:

jimbo

April 4th 2003, 05:08 PM

Mr. "Holding,"

You use Answers In Genesis as your source for scientific information. What was the process you went through to determine that this organization was a reliable source of scientific information? Are you aware that the "scientific" opinions of the people in AIG are not shared by most scientists? Are you aware that the idea that the human race is only 4000 years old is not supported by mainstream science? Do you ever think about the fact that your views about Genesis are not supported by modern science? Do you care?

Lucrecia

The Laughing Man

April 4th 2003, 07:42 PM

Is science a popularity contest?

jimbo

April 5th 2003, 04:47 PM

Jinx,

The evidence provided from scientific observations and research argues for a much older earth and a much older age for the human race than young earth creationists claim.

That's the problem.

I am not aware of any real scientific research that AIG performs to determine the age of the earth or the human race. It appears that this organization is committed to supporting a literal interpretation of the Bible regardless of what scientific research and study reveals.

Bruce

rogerthomas

April 7th 2003, 03:26 AM

04-05-2003 @ 08:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jimbo:

Jinx,

The evidence provided from scientific observations and research argues for a much older earth and a much older age for the human race than young earth creationists claim.

That's the problem.

I am not aware of any real scientific research that AIG performs to determine the age of the earth or the human race. It appears that this organization is committed to supporting a literal interpretation of the Bible regardless of what scientific research and study reveals.

Bruce

Is the YEC movement really that large of a stumbling block to you and your search for truth. Even among the faithful, the YEC movement is tiny, and ill-supported. Most of us accept that the earth is older than 6000 years, and there is no problem with our faith being contradicted by this. What would it take for you to find an acceptable median in the bible that would bring you comfort? I have met some that were talked into the YEC fold, but evidence to the contrary brought them back out again. It is a lesson learned, and not necessarily a bad thing. If you are not open to new information, then you will drown in stagnant waters. If you wish, I would speak with you more at length regarding this and other things. I won't debate you, that is pointless, but I am here to talk with if you ever need an understanding ear. There is no gain in battling those whose viewpoints you disagree with, especially in those where it is so entrenched. It is always best to just talk with people, and preferably in a non-confrontational and friendly environment(bees and vinegar you know). Anyway, give up on this useless debate of ice layers and dating, and talk about things that ARE important. There is room for god in everyone's heart. And it will do you no good to beat on those who have hardened their hearts.

Socrates

April 7th 2003, 06:37 AM

rogerthomas:Is the YEC movement really that large of a stumbling block to you and your search for truth.No, his sin is. Even among the faithful, the YEC movement is tiny, and ill-supported.Have you heard of Chesterton's term "democracy of the dead"? The YEC view was the almost universal view of the Christian Church until they got intimidated by so-called "science". Most of us accept that the earth is older than 6000 years, Since when is truth decided by majority vote? I have met some that were talked into the YEC fold, but evidence to the contrary brought them back out again. WHAT evidence?? rog is elephant hurling again.

Pilgrim

April 7th 2003, 09:42 AM

Have you heard of Chesterton's term "democracy of the dead"? The YEC view was the almost universal view of the Christian Church until they got intimidated by so-called "science".
Most of us accept that the earth is older than 6000 years,
Since when is truth decided by majority vote?

Sorry but those two statements stand oxymornically against one another.

And besides, the early church thought the earth was flat as well so it seems disingenous to claim it as an authority on all matters of science.

dizzle

April 7th 2003, 09:44 AM

Actually the early church did not think the earth was flat, I do believe that is a myth.

Pilgrim

April 7th 2003, 09:51 AM

Ok well not the earliest church I conceed, but my point still stands. They thought many things which we no longer hold as truth.

dizzle

April 7th 2003, 10:03 AM

Still, I think the point needs to be refined. I do not beleive that Socrates' point was to declare them an authority on matters of science, but to declare the early testimony as an authority on matters of Scripture untainted by the desire to force certain scientific constructs unto the texts. Even most old earth commentators concede that the text alone compelling testifies to the YEC position and if it were not for the need to conform the text to what is the majority belief in modern science, there would not be discussions of day-ages and the like. I find such confessions very frank.

Warcraft3

April 7th 2003, 05:55 PM

Dee Dee Warden:

"Even most old earth commentators concede that the text alone compelling testifies to the YEC position and if it were not for the need to conform the text to what is the majority belief in modern science, there would not be discussions of day-ages and the like."

Maybe you have read where an old earth commentator said,

"if it were not for the need to conform the text to what is the majority belief in modern science, there would not be discussions of day-ages and the like"

But some (myself for example) would disagree with that statement. My journey towards old earth creationism began with the text, not science. In fact I did not know enough science at the time (I was very young) to really make a conclusion one way or the other based on science. So my doubts about YEC really came form Genesis chapter 1 and to a lesser degree from Genesis chapter 2.

Just out of curiosity:

"I am an orthodox preterist, postmillenial, wanna-be Molinist, Trinitarian."

I noticed that there isnt a comma between orthodox and preterist so my question is...
Are you saying you are an orthodox and a preterist? Or are you saying you are an "orthodox preterist"? And if you statement is the latter then what exactly is a non-orthodox preterist?

Russ

jimbo

April 9th 2003, 12:01 AM

Mr. "Holding,"

Do you have an answer to my question about your use of AIG?

Jack

jpholding

April 9th 2003, 11:08 AM

Hiya Frank!

You have all the answer you're getting! :brow:

Jimbo Flakes they taste the best
look terrific on your vest!
Serve them to unwanted guests,
stuff the mattress with the rest!

I am ignoring this thread now. Bye, Lucretia! :rofl:

Socrates

April 9th 2003, 11:18 AM

Steadele asked Dee Dee Warren:Maybe you have read where an old earth commentator said,

"if it were not for the need to conform the text to what is the majority belief in modern science, there would not be discussions of day-ages and the like"He could read my opening post in my debate www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=49433#post49433 where I document several people admitting just that, in effect.

Warcraft3

April 9th 2003, 01:38 PM

Socrates:

"Steadele asked Dee Dee Warren:
{Maybe you have read where an old earth commentator said,

"if it were not for the need to conform the text to what is the majority belief in modern science, there would not be discussions of day-ages and the like"}

He could read my opening post in my debate www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthrea...49433#post49433 where I document several people admitting just that, in effect."

I have read your opening post and I thought it was very good indeed. I was trying to say that while some commentators do make such statements, there are people (like myself) who found problems with YEC first in the text. My first doubts werent related to science, but to the actual text.

Russ

jimbo

April 9th 2003, 02:47 PM

Mr. "Holding,"

I am making a very simple request for information from you, and you are continually refusing to provide an answer. An answer to my question would probably only require one or two sentences, yet you will not provide even one or two sentences in response. I can only conclude, as others have concluded, that the reason you have chosen AIG as a source for scientifically reliable information is simply because the people at that organization happen to share your religious opinions-and for no other reason. The people at AIG are, like you, young earth creationists.

I will remind you again that young earth creationism is not supported by the the research and the facts uncovered by mainstream science.

You deferment to AIG for scientific information is not based on careful thought and reason, but is based instead on nothing more than your religious bias.

Mandy

jimbo

April 13th 2003, 12:35 AM

Sauron

April 13th 2003, 01:13 AM

[i]04-09-2003 @ 08:08 AM
I am ignoring this thread now. Bye, Lucretia! :rofl:

Not surprising.

When cornered with no place to go, exit quickly and wave your hands - hope no one will notice that you're dodging the question.

Classic Holding.

jimbo

April 13th 2003, 02:15 AM

Sauron,

"Holding" can ignore this thread, but I will continue to pose my question. The fact of the matter is that I am simply asking him for very basic information-a sentence or two in response-I am not challenging him to a debate. If "Holding" really feels that he used a legitimate process to determine the reliability of AIG's "scientific" information, then he should have no problem whatsoever in explaining what this process was. He refusal to provide an answer is, well, interesting.

Here are a few places where "Holding" defers to AIG for scientific information:

http://www.tektonics.org/evologic2.html

KYLE GERKIN: In short, if you are making a decision on whether or not to buy (or sell) evolution, you ought to look at the actual evidence. A good source on the web can be found here. And of course, there are more books than you can shake a crucifix at, from "On the Origin of the Species" to works by modern scientists such as Dawkins, whose books are far more than collections of analogies. If you don't have time to bother with the evidence, you could always take the path you endorsed in your opening paragraph and "respect the knowledge of those more informed" than you, granting the benefit of the doubt to the years (and lifetimes!) of study made by members of the scientific community.

"JP HOLDING": I respect their knowledge in science (and as a matter of course, refer all readers to my friends at Answers in Genesis on science issues), but their ability to think is clearly impaired. If Dawkins uses these analogies and is therefore a bad communicator, why then should I think he has communicated his science ideas properly? How do I know, if he does not recognize that these analogies are invalid, that he also does not recognize that other ideas of his are invalid?

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-E.html

Evolution

I'm no scientist, so expect mostly links here. I prefer to refer folks to my friends at Answers in Genesis. Others have recommended TrueOrigin.org and Access Research Network.

Kudos,

Jimbo

Sauron

April 13th 2003, 03:05 AM

Yesterday @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64852#post64852)
jimbo:

Sauron,

"Holding" can ignore this thread, but I will continue to pose my question. The fact of the matter is that I am simply asking him for very basic information-a sentence or two in response-I am not challenging him to a debate.

Let me guess - JP Hiding is too cowardly to accept the challenge. Am I right?
:rofl:

If "Holding" really feels that he used a legitimate process to determine the reliability of AIG's "scientific" information, then he should have no problem whatsoever in explaining what this process was. He refusal to provide an answer is, well, interesting.

Well, you know my position here:

1. JP Handwave avoids discussing evolution, cosmology, and earth history, and
2. tries to says that he is unqualified to discuss such topics, yet after all that
3. continues to put forth AiG as a reputable scientific organization, and
4. refuses to explain why

If #1 and #2 are true, then #3 is nonsense - if JP Handywipe doesn't have the skills to evaluate evolution, then quite frankly he doesn't know and cannot tell who is right, and who is wrong.

So the logical statemen that he should make is "I don't know. I can't make a decision on the evolution/geology/cosmology question, because I'm not qualified. So I'm not taking sides here."

But does he do that? Of course not.

Instead, he puts forth AiG as a reputable scientific source - as evidenced by the links you provided, jimbo.

He realize that the I hate fruitcake, it is just too hard when someone throws it at you :tongue: who read his website wouldn't tolerate such a non-committal position on creationism. So he needs to endorse AiG to keep his fruitcake flock tuned in to his drivel.

asd

The bottom line here is that:

1. JP Hiding is too chicken to debate this topic, because he's already seen that the creationists lose - and badly.
2. He is a coward, who hides his fear by pretending to not be able to debate. But nobody's buying it.
3. So to avoid getting his precious ego dirty, he waves his hands, shouts really loudly, and tries to sneak out the back door.

Socrates

April 14th 2003, 01:57 AM

Lizard Being:Instead, he puts forth AiG as a reputable scientific source - as evidenced by the links you provided, jimbo.Which Sauron and Jimbo have not disproven.He realize that the fundie fruitcakes who read his website wouldn't tolerate such a non-committal position on creationism.What nonsense. Fundie fruitcakes would not tolerate his contextual studies on the Biblical text instead of reading it as a 21st century American newspaper (as fundie skeptics like Lizzie do too!).Not only that, but endorsing creationism is good for the internet donation scam he's running.Boring -- where is Lizzie's protest at the request for donations from Dan Barker's loony atheist outfit?The bottom line here is that:

1. JP Hiding is too chicken to debate this topic, because he's already seen that the creationists lose - and badly. How strange -- most leading evolutionists advise against debating creationists. For instance, the atheist Russell Doolittle got creamed in a televised evolution/creation debate with Duane Gish held before 5000 people at Liberty University on 13 Oct 1981. The rabid evolutionist Roger Lewin described the debate as a ‘rout’ for Gish in Science 214:638, 1981. The next day, the debate was reported by the pro-evolution Washington Post under the headline ‘Science Loses One to Creationism’. The sub-headline cited Doolittle's anguished remark: ‘How am I going to face my wife?’, so Doolittle himself had no illusion that he was thrashed. And he has no excuse because it was about his fourth debate with Gish. 2. He is a coward, who hides his fear by pretending to not be able to debate. But nobody's buying it. Get serious -- he's got more debates in Boxing Ring than anyone else!3. So to avoid getting his precious ego dirty, he waves his hands, shouts really loudly, and tries to sneak out the back door.OK then, why not debate him in one of his many specialty areas rather than harping on about science, which is not his specialty as he is humble enough to admit. Unlike you, who pontificates on everything without knowing what you're talking about.

jimbo

April 14th 2003, 04:19 AM

Socrates,

Sauron: Instead, he puts forth AiG as a reputable scientific source - as evidenced by the links you provided, jimbo.

Socrates: Which Sauron and Jimbo have not disproven.

As I stated previously, the "scientific" claims made by the people at AIG are not supported by science-by the actual research done in the real world. So the question becomes: why does Mr JP "Holding" defer to this organization for scientific information? How did he manage to determine that AIG provides reliable scientific information if, as he claims, he is not knowledgable about scientific matters?

Sauron's explanation for this fascinating conundrum makes a great deal of sense, especially when we see that Mr. "Holding" repeatedly refuses to answer this very simple question.

How strange -- most leading evolutionists advise against debating creationists.

Yes, because it gives people the impression that the creationist position actually has scientific merit, and it doesn't. Creationist beliefs are not based on science, but are instead based on religion or, to be more accurate, on faith. Scientists do not generally engage in oral debates with creationists for much the same reason that they don't engage in oral debates with flat-earthers, astrologists, UFOologists, CloneAid cultists, Moonies, etc.

But there are still debates. The funny thing is, creationists tend to be much less eager to engage in written debates, such as on the Interent. These written debates are not as conducive to rapid-fire fallacy spewing (the creationists' favorite tactic in oral debates, otherwise known as the the "Gish Gallop") and, as such, they put creationists at a decided disadvantage.

Brad