In my recent reviews of the rise and fall of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement (see here and here), I mentioned that the IDers were not young Earth creationists. They accepted almost all of the scientific conclusions regarding the age of the Earth and evolution. What they wanted was to overthrow the idea of both methodological and philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism that they felt undermined the basis for belief in god.
Accepting an old Earth and the tenets of evolution creates a serious theological problem for all Christians whose foundational belief is that all of us are sinners even from birth, and that Jesus died as vicarious atonement for our sins to enable us to be forgiven. Christians believe that all suffering is due to the fall from grace caused by the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they defied god’s instructions not to eat from the tree of knowledge and that sin was then passed down to everyone since then. The problem for those who treat the Genesis story and the Garden of Eden as metaphorical is that it undermines this belief.
If you believe in an old Earth and evolution, then when did the original sin that taints all of us occur? How do you explain the natural disasters and suffering that occurred during the time of our pre-human ancestors? Mainstream theologians have devoted considerable efforts to addressing this problem but I want to focus on William Dembski’s suggested solution that got him into considerable hot water from the young Earth creationists. I wrote much of this post some time ago at the time when it happened but I am providing an updated version because I thought some readers might benefit (and be amused) in seeing how convoluted it can get to include original sin once you abandon the idea of a young Earth.
Dembski’s book The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (2009) supposedly answered this question but since there was no chance in hell that I would buy that book and read it, I thought his solution would be forever lost to me. But fortunately there was a blogger (who claimed to be also an orthodox Baptist) who wrote a detailed review of Dembski’s book with lots of direct quotes in a Facebook post (that has since unfortunately disappeared) so that I became privy to Dembski’s main argument which I will share with you, because I am sure that you have been losing sleep worrying over this very question. Brace yourself for an earthshaking revelation: in Dembski’s theory effects can precede causes!
Here’s how Dembski’s theory works. He retains the Garden of Eden story but within the framework of an old Earth. You start with the big bang and evolution working their way through, all leading up to the time when non-human hominids appeared. All this happened just the way we godless heathens say it happened based on silly old evidence and the laws of science. But as Dembski says, “these hominids initially lacked the cognitive and moral capacities required to bear the image of God.” Then at some point, these hominids entered the Garden of Eden, “received God’s image and became fully human” (whatever that means). They then experienced the famous fall from grace and the consequent punishment of suffering that is inflicted on us all.
But what about all the suffering experienced by living things before this? How do you explain that? Here’s the real kicker: All the suffering that occurred before that time was due to god applying the punishment retroactively because he knew the fall was going to happen later. So, for example, god punished the poor dinosaurs by sending an asteroid to collide with the Earth and cause all of them to go extinct because sixty five million years later a couple of hominids would wander into a garden and eat some fruit. Doesn’t seem quite fair to the dinosaurs but god moves in mysterious ways and who are we to question god’s sense of justice?
At this point, I am sure that some of you are saying, “Hold it right there, Bill. Isn’t that going a bit too far? Surely you realize that abandoning the principle of causality is to deal science a mortal blow? If effects can precede causes, then is anything in science safe? Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
The problem with you cynics is that you are not looking at things with the eye of faith. After all, once you have given god the power of omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence so that he can overrule all the laws of science, why hold back? Why not go the whole hog and give him the power to reverse cause and effect as well? As Dembski says, “Why, in the economy of a world whose Creator is omnipotent, omniscient, and transtemporal, should causes always precede effects?” True, that. Once you have demonstrated a willingness to abandon almost all of science, why cling to some trivial remnant of it merely because it poses an obstacle to your theological argument? As the comic strip Jesus and Mo astutely points out, what gives religion its edge is that it is allowed to make stuff up.
One of Dembski’s critics, fellow Baptist theologian Tom Nettles who thinks a young Earth is the way to go, thought that Dembski’s theory was absurd and in a scathing review of the book compares it to a stern father who spanks his child soundly every Sunday evening because he knows that the child will do something wrong during the coming week and so he might as well get the punishment over with.
There is no doubt that Dembski is clever and highly knowledgeable and educated. When I think of all the undoubtedly very clever people over the centuries, even millennia, spending enormous amounts of time tying themselves up in intellectual knots to reconcile their allegedly holy books with rapidly advancing science, it truly does seem like a colossal waste of brain power. The United Negro College Fund has for decades had as its slogan “A mind is a terrible thing to waste” and that truly applies to people like Dembski. What make it worse is that the people seeking to solve such problems do not seem to realize that the problems they are grappling with are artificial ones of their own creation and are not able to see a simple solution that stares them in the face.
The story of Adam and Eve leads directly to the story of Cain and Abel. You will surely recall that the latter pleased His Almightiness by an offering of “of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof”, while the former got no respect for bringing a vegan special.
I just got a revelation that A went on a mad rampage and cut up all the dinos (hush about that bird heresy!), a massive blood-spree of exactly the sort that warmeth Yahveh’s cardiac cockles. Maybe if plant-boy had thought fast and invented french fries, ketchup, onion rings and beer to accompany that fraternal feast, Big Y would have been mollified to the point of only smiting him with emerods or suchlike.
I think that’s the final fallback excuse of all theology, really. You don’t actually need to explicitly assert reverse causality; you just need to piously say something like “God does what He does; who are we mere mortals to question it?”
Needs a space, here.
Once you try offering such common-sense analogies, all of theology is in trouble. “So. . . under original sin, God is the father who spanks all of the child’s children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren (and so on, obviously), because of something the child did?”
If you can excuse God for cursing the Earth for original sin and for drowning most of humanity in a Flood, and damning everyone unsaved to eternal torture in Hell, you can excuse anything God did do, does, will do, or will haven done.
I don’t think that is factually accurate. Some of the IDers were Old Earth, some were Young Earth. “Intelligent Design” was supposed to be a big tent to draw together all the opponents to evolution. The “Intelligent Design” terminology was adopted after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of 1987, when “scientific creationism” had failed and thus a new legally defensible term was needed. In order to preserve the atmosphere of the ‘big tent,” ID leaders were supposed to maintain neutrality on such basic scientific issues as the age of the earth and age of the universe, which made them appear very silly. ID proponents included Old Earth advocates like Behe, but also the same old Young Earth advocates who were involved in earlier anti-evolution efforts. Their strategy was to drop any positive claims about accuracy of the Bible creation account and concentrate on “criticisms” of evolution.
a stern father who spanks his child soundly every Sunday evening because he knows that the child will do something wrong during the coming week and so he might as well get the punishment over with.
Beat your son every week, because even if you don’t know why, he surely will. -- Lao Tze
Of course, that’s not “christian morality”… Christian morality is for god to stand around with his arms crossed, observing back and forth through time, as his creations do what he told them not to do, but created them incapable of resisting. Then he has himself tortured because: love! I don’t get christian morality, but then I’m one of those nihilistic skeptics.
Owlmirror@#2:
Once you try offering such common-sense analogies, all of theology is in trouble. “So. . . under original sin, God is the father who spanks all of the child’s children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren (and so on, obviously), because of something the child did?”
I never could understand why god doesn’t just use a bit of omnipotence and have always spanked everyone who needed spanking when they needed spanking. A god that is unstuck in time can do that sort of thing. For that matter, he could have retroactively fixed his creation.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that god is really, really not very smart.
“Scientific people,” proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required for the proper assimilation of this, “know very well that Time is only a kind of Space.”
Marcus says:
I can assure you it’s quite easy to not get that morality without being anything close to a nihilist.
Hang on. KVJ… KJV… There’s a joke there somewhere.
But yeah, even The Shrike in Dan Simmons’ Hyperion tetralogy can manage to punish those as need it, irrespective of time. Hmm, now I’m wondering if The Shrike represents God. It would kind of go along with the way the Roman Catholic Church is portrayed in those books. May have to re-read ’em. (For those who haven’t, I recommend them.)
Sorry, what were we talking about? Ah yes, the absurdity of “Your theology makes absolutely no sense; it would require (a capricious god|suspending the laws of physics as we know them|admitting that the Bible is a sloppy pasteup job by drunken lawyers). Whereas my theology is completely sound. And obvious.” I, um… not really much more to say about that, really.
Just a shame there is no proof of millions of years or evolution. Not one single provable occurrence of one living animal evolving into another.
Gary @#8,
What kind of evidence would you need to be persuaded of a “provable occurrence of one living animal evolving into another”?
At another website (I’m not plugging it), he’s called Dumbski. He’s earned it.
Any. Any proof that one animal has “evolved” into another. Currently there is not one single provable case of one animal evolving into another.
Even Dawkins admits there is no such proven case of a single animal evolving into another. Scientifically we can see adaptation, we can see that extend (our interpretation) to speciation, but the bird is still a bird, the bacteria is still a bacteria. The theory that those small changes add up over time to make a new animal is purely speculation with NO proof. Dawkins states, “we haven’t had enough time”. So he believes it on faith, not because there is proof. He has faith that what we observe in science, that if you give it enough time, will produce a new animal. All you have (at best) is a collection of observations in the here and now that you could argue would be inline with the theory of evolution. But there is no proof. Give me one proof. Had there been one, I am sure Dawkins would have pointed it out. But there isn’t. The observations you have also can be viewed in many ways.
Taking adaptation and hypothesising that given enough time we would have a new animal is not verifiable, provable or testable. So is not scientifically proven. Besides, it has also been shown that ALL observable adaptations are brought about by either loss of genetic information or switching on or off genetic information that is already there. We have never observed the increase in genetic information required to enable a single cell organism to become a multicell organism and so on.
Give me proof. And by proof I mean scientific proof, verifiable, testable, and repeatable. One.
Gary,
Here, here, and here are some examples of evolution.
But I do not expect you to be convinced since the way you use the words ‘proof’, ‘verifiable’, and ‘repeatable’ suggest to me a shallow understanding of the nature of science and evolution, and an ideological/religious commitment to denying evolution that will find ‘reasons’ to reject any proffered evidence. But that’s ok. I offer them up anyway because I like spreading science and knowledge around.
The Garden of Eden story always puts me in mind of a really irresponsible parent who doesn’t child-proof the house but in stead leaves bleach around on the floor of the kids room…in an old coke bottle.
And then blames the kids for the inevitable.
Of course not, as explained by science. Individual animals do not evolve. Rather, populations evolve over time. You should educate yourself, rather than advertising your ignorance over Teh Interwebz.
Reginald. Give me one example that is proven. There is not one. Even Dawkins acknowledges that. You see mutations and adaptation, and you have a belief that time will produce a differen animal. I know the subject, there are many qualified scientists that share my view. At best you have some observations, you certainly have no proof.
Add to that you just believe life started from nothing, which goes against science, and there is no idea what so ever as to how that happened, you just blindly accept it, with zero evidence and zero science.
Mary L @#10,
I don’t think Dembski is stupid. I think that he has committed his life and his considerable intellect to salvaging an idea that is at root untenable and this results in him tying himself up in knots. I actually feel sorry for him. To paraphrase Marlon Brando from On the Waterfront: “He coulda had class. He coulda been a contender. He coulda been somebody”.
Mano,
Example 1) Bacteria are still bacteria. You are talking mutations or genetic information that is already there. No new info is added, and certainly not of the kind required to “grow an arm” or progress to a higher organism.
Example 2) Tiktaalik -- really. Supposedly the fossil between water and walking. Except that view has been changed as a fossil footprints were found 18 million years before Tiktaalik, so couldn’t have been transitional. Even evolutionists don’t use that now.
Example 3) Bacteria again. Even “super bugs” generally a population will contain resistant and non-resistant bugs. We kill off the non-resistant so we are left with the resistant ones and we are left with ineffective antibiotics. No change in the bacteria, just more of the resistant ones. Biology 101.
Adaptation we see. I have no issue with that. Here and now science is great. Adaptation and speciation are all good for the creation model. But to say that means evolution is true is just a story. Even if you sit two fossils side by side. They might have some similarities, but to say they are related is an assumption. Scientifically, you still just have 2 fossils. No evidence to show they are related. Similarities in embryo’s (long ago discredited) just show similarities. Conclusions of common ancestry are simply stories.
So give me one example of one kind of animal that is proven to have evolved into another.
Even your scientists can’t agree on the “tree of life”. Whales evolved from bears, no cows, no hippopotamus. There is no proof, it is speculation. We see small changes, we assume these add up to big changes. That isn’t proof. An honest scientist admits those short comings. A site declaring free thought should be putting facts out there -- for and against -- whatever the subject. Clearly only free thought if it is in line with popular thinking.
No one can prove the past. Hence this argument goes on. If someone had proven one animal evolved into another, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But I will happily view any examples of one kind of animal evolving into another.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
Yes. these are from a creationist site, but they are scientific articles, so if you are going to critique, come back with science, don’t just dismiss them because you don’t want to believe them. Look at the content, don’t just dismiss it. The science is factual. Creation.com are very honest and presented with new evidence will correct articles, and have a complete section on arguments not to use. They want to keep it factual. So don’t just go “they’re creationists, pseudo-science” they are looking at the same evidence.
Gary @#17,
Yep, that is pretty much what I expected you to say because I have spent a long time talking with anti-evolution people and am familiar with how they think and argue. I am a little surprised that you did not bring up the terms micro-evolution and macroevolution.
Gary, *we* aren’t the ones making an extraordinary claim here. *You* are. The burden of proof is on *you*, not us.
Show us *one* example — just *one* — of an animal being created ex nihilo by a transcendent cosmic being that doesn’t come from someone’s subjective account or from some ancient story that has no corroborating evidence whatsoever. Heck, just show us *one* piece of indisputable evidence that a transcendent cosmic being exists at all.
Give us proof. And by proof I mean scientific proof, verifiable, testable, and repeatable. One.
Gary:
The idea of deep time is too outré for YECs.
(The idea of a magical transcendent uncaused cause creating and guiding everything else, not-so-much)
Mano #16 We can be intellectually smart, but still lack intelligence in many areas. That may be why he ties himself into knots. The untenable position he takes is his own choice. He’s an adult, not.an uneducated child, which makes it very difficult for me to feel sorry for him. Many roads to nowhere are lined with, “woulda, coulda, shoulda.”
@Gary:
This is not true.
Creation.com has a statement of faith, which outlines repeatedly that they will not accept anything that contradicts their religious beliefs.
I mean, look at this howler:
Do you agree with the statement of faith? If so, then there’s no point in discussing anything about science with you. You literally do not care about facts.
Well, Scripture is pretty clear*.
God created Adam, then Adam got lonely and horny so God created Eve, then Adam fucked Eve and they duly had children (with Eve suffering excruciating childbirth pain because of her original sin) who duly fucked each other and had yet more children (with all the women suffering excruciating childbirth pain because of Eve’s original sin) until the human race spread out.
(Take that, science)
—
* For Christian values of ‘clear’ — the original source was a tad more subtle and allegorical.
Actually®
in Chapter 1, God created with His Word an unspecifed number of men and women.
He told them to be fruitful and multiply, so off they went.
They were too busy fruitfully multiplying to till the earth, so God had to make another pair out of dirt, breath and baculum.
Their kids had no problem finding mates from amongst the fruiting multiples.
Bored.
Such ignorance of genetic algorithms!
John Morales #26
who are you quoting?
chigau, from the second link @Gary’s #18.
Friendly -- 20
The fossil record does that for me. One of the long unanswered issues faced by evolutionists is the fact that ALL creatures appear in the fossil record fully developed and complex. No sign of transition from one kind to another. Again honest scientists acknowledge that.
But your statement isn’t correct. Whilst the majority belief is of evolution, there is no proof, so the burden of proof isn’t on me. You are happy with schools teaching “science” where there is no evidence and only belief. Truth is, you have been told the lie long enough you completely believe it.
Whilst you describe my belief as being in a transcendent being, I am honest and acknowledge that is by faith and my personal experience with God. The evidence is all around to see, but you will need to willingly ask God to enter your life for your eyes to be opened.
But you mock me and ask for proof, but you believe life started from nothing. That life mysteriously just started (science proved life can only come from life) which goes against science, but you believe it because man says it happened. No evidence, no proof, nothing. At this moment in time, I have more proof than you do. A God inspired text that is proven to be accurate time and time again, passes all tests of authenticity, and describes the start. You simply have belief that the universe started from nothing, and life started from nothing. And science has so little idea of how life started, they are desperate to find life in space to be able to say life came from space. That’s how short of ideas they are.
So, mock me if you like, I admit I have a belief system, a world view. I can’t prove God to you. But you are the one insisting that evolution is true, yet there is NO theory as to how life started, and NO proof that one animal evolves into another.
John Morales -- 21
Until as recent as 100 years ago, the predominant belief was that the Earth was young. Uniformitarianism changed that, but it was a convenient change that allowed for millions of years, required for evolution. Again, there is no proof that the Earth is billions of years old or millions of years old, or thousands of years old. It can’t be proven, and an honest scientist will acknowledge that. You can piece together some observations, some evidence, in the here and now and say that it is consistent with a long ages view. That is the best you can achieve. But there is significant evidence that also disputes that.
Even evolution disputes that. The best defence of long ages is that what you see now, extrapolates back in time, which would take you back billions of years, yet evolution relies on “Punctuated Equilibrium” where changes occurred rapidly and not slowly over time. We also know that to bury a whale you need rapid sedimentation that will cover it quickly, ie a catastrophic event. An evolutionist website covered the issue of Polystrate Fossils (upright tree) stating that it was a localised catastrophic flood that buried the trees quickly under multiple layers of sedimentation quickly. They acknowledged a localised catastrophic flood that put down many layers, whilst denying a global flood. They avoided the subject that in many cases of poystrate fossils, the rock layers are dated as millions of years apart, again contradicting the evidence. So you can deny uniformitarianism when it is convenient. But accept it when it suits.
And we haven’t got onto the fact that the moon is moving further from the earth, magnetic fields, etc etc etc, so many issues with long ages.
If you truly investigated the facts rather than blindly accept them, you would at least have to admit it is not cut and dried and there are issues. If there weren’t issues, there wouldn’t be qualified scientists moving to creationism, because the facts don’t add up.
http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
So yes, I openly admit I refer to the bible as a starting point. But you refer to???? Nothing. The evolution just happened to appear from nothing, with no reason, and life came from nothing. With some observations in the here and now, these have been extrapolated backwards with some story telling, and the current observations weaved into them. But there is NOT one piece of evidence that can’t be viewed and interpreted with a different world view. But there is ZERO scientific evidence that PROVES an old earth. Not one.
Owlmirror -- 23
No, I am very honest, as are creation.com of our world view and starting point. I am also confident that any evidence or science experiment that is conducted can be interpreted within the framework of the bible. And if not now, it will in the future. And I appreciate that is what puts a lot of people off. But it is an honest statement.
The issue is, science has EXACTLY the same issue. It is equal, but opposite. It has a world view that insists that EVERYTHING can be explained in light of a naturalistic answer. It ASSUMES that nature is behind everything, and EXACTLY as I have described above, if the answer isn’t known now, over time, science will uncover the answers.
http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
So your statement flips around 180 degrees straight back at you. Science will readily slam creationists for their belief that everything can be interpreted in line with the bible, but science will only interpret the data inline with Nature. And that, my friend, in a nutshell, is the whole issue.
Imagine for one moment God did create. Or (as some believe) God used evolution to create, but guided it along it’s way. Imagine the world is only 1000s of years old. When evidence presents itself that support the creator God or supports young ages, science will dismiss it and interpret it in a naturalistic way. It doesn’t matter what evidence contradicts their theory, it is ignored. Exactly as you accuse creationists of doing. In fact it now goes one step further. As so much of the evolution narrative relies on long ages, any evidence that contradicts long ages will also be ignored, actually not ignored, will be interpreted in a way to fit the long ages, naturalistic world view.
This was proven with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bone in 1995. It was originally dismissed as not possible by the scientific community. They denied it because they knew soft tissue couldn’t last that long -- ie 65 million years. Once they had to accept it, they put their interpretation on it. At the time, scientific evidence said soft tissue couldn’t last that long, but there was never a question of the age of the sample, that was “known” the only question was, how can soft tissue be preserved that long. The interpretation was within the world view of science.
So don’t assume science doesn’t have the same issue. It does. If you think that is an issue for creationists, then you need to question the impartiality of scientists.
Creationists start with the Bible.
Science starts with nature.
Both have a bias. Creation.com are honest about that bias. You are not.
John Morales -- 26
You are so critical, but have so little to offer. If something is scientifically wrong with that statement, show it.
Issue is, and this is the way it always goes with these conversations, you dismiss it due to the source but fail to acknowledge you accept an interpretation despite the lack of evidence.
If you have an issue, apply some science.
The fact is that with EVERY observable mutation, adaptation, genetic change, the change is always downwards. Genetic change with an increase of information of the type required by evolution has NEVER been seen. Even the human genome is in decline, mutations adding new issues with each generation. Another issue unexplained by evolution.
And the algorithms, yes those complex algorithms, they would be the ones to complex to have happened by chance.
I’ll happily discuss the evidence, but all you have demonstrated so far is the lack of to defend a statement.
Gary:
I already did -- the exclamation mark at the end is hyperlinked. All you need to do is click on the link and follow the links that link provides.
Actually, genetic algorithms are evidence — it is mutation (random change) that they exploit to gain complexity, contrary to the claim you cited.
Can you compute what proportion of 4+ billion years is compared to 6,000 years?
Seriously.
Remember how you wrote: “We see small changes, we assume these add up to big changes.”
That’s exactly how genetic algorithms work — and they do work.
(fitness to the environment s the ratchet function)
You’re all over the place.
Whatever makes you imagine I claimed they happened by chance? They’re computer programs, programmed by a programmer!
(Phew!, you think. But wait a moment…)
Thing is, that it is random mutation that drives those algorithms, so whatever their source, they actually do generate complexity from randomness. Contrary to the claim in your source.
Discuss away, but please address others no less than you address me.
(I’m pretty sure you know this is a retired scientist’s blog, and that therefore his audience is skewed towards rationalist empiricists — “leftist”, in practice. You are an anomaly, but you are welcome.
Oh, I was working through the objections, and have run out. It looks like I have posted a scientific case for creation, pointed out the scientific issues with long ages and evolution, and the best we can do to respond is to turn the burden of proof on me, or to dismiss a statement off hand as lack of understanding with zero qualification of that stance,
The truth is most people blindly accept millions of years and evolution because scientists said so, and because it is talked about as fact. If anyone truly investigates the “science” the “evidence” you would see it is shaky at best. If you truly read any historical science article or paper, you will see it is littered with “could be” “might have been” “scientists believe”, it is never proof or fact.
All the models for the evolution of the universe, creation of planets etc currently rely on dark matter. Dark matter is the scientific god of the gaps. Yes, at times creationists say “God did it”, but that is exactly what science does. Invents a new particle, or a new force. To make any model of the big bang work, dark matter and dark energy are required. Despite decades of searching, these have never been found. So I believe God did it. But you believe that it just happened, and a crucial ingredient is dark matter which has never been found.
What if the “dark matter” is some aspect of God? Now that is free thought.
I don’t believe that statement. But hopefully you can see where I am going. There are many unproven aspects to long ages and evolution. There are many many assumptions. There is no proof. But you accept it without question. That’s not free thinking. Free thinking takes something someone says that isn’t inline with your current view and look at it and assess it. Not dismiss it without thought. You don’t just accept the consensus view.
Wasn’t long ago the majority thought that slavery was ok. It’s not. It wasn’t long ago the majority thought that black people were less evolved. They were wrong. Not long ago, science (majority) thought you could drain blood to cure people, they were wrong. A majority doesn’t make it right, and if you look at every major scientific development, it was when they went against the majority. But the ability to stand up against the norm, the paradigm, has been taken away. Free thought is being taken away. And science will be the worse off for it.
John Morales -- Sorry, I was critical of your response, but I did mean to thank you for at least reading (if not all, some of) the article I posted. I often find that dismissal of the evidence I post is without even looking at it, certainly without reading it, and certainly with no consideration of the content. You have broken the norm of my experience, and thank you, as you are in the minority by at least looking at what I have posted.
G
Gary:
You really think so?
Heh.
Well, not that long ago in the USA.
But that had nothing to do with scientific evolutionary theory.
From Wikipedia (with citations):
You confuse phlebotomy with science (akin to confusing phrenology with science).
Yet here you are, freethinking. Though you do it on the basis of a religious belief and cite creationist sites as authoritative.
!
You really imagine science would be better off if counterfactual beliefs were incorporated into its consensus?
—
Let’s consider one of your stated beliefs:
Citing Wikipedia, “In general, the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per cell generation.”
Do you dispute that, even if the rate of mutation is less than that, it is not zero? Because if not, then it must follow that every generation must be lesser than its ancestor generation.
(and even a measly 6,000 years is a whole lot of generations)
John Morales -- apologies -- missed the hyper link (to be fair, was a bit small 🙂 ). That doesn’t change the fact that mutations are of downward and don’t show an increase in genetic information. Significant increases in genetic information are required for evolution, that is never seen in ANY observable example.
Mutations can gain “complexity” in the way it changes an organism. But genes can’t be created. There has never been a case where an organism suddenly increases it’s genome to suddenly create a new bodily function or organ. Add to that, to (for example) to take a short necked creature and “evolve” that into a giraffe takes so many changes, ie changes to the heart, blood, arteries, extra valves to deal with the increased pressure and changes in pressure moving the head from high to low, as well as the increase in the size of the neck etc, the number of changes required just doesn’t stack up and are all interdependent. With the observable science, all we see is mutations within the genome. Mostly result in issues. Sometimes exhibit a positive trait.
Yes, I can compute 4+ billion to 6000, but your theory here also goes against the evidence. That fits perfectly with uniform change, and if that were the case we would (as Darwin predicted) see many many intermediary animals. We would see partially newly formed limbs as these mutations add up. But evolution created it’s own issues with punctuated equilibrium. Because we see fully formed creatures appear, pretty much as their modern counter parts, in the fossil record, the evidence doesn’t show this slow accumulation of mutations. What you see is one family of animals, no change, and then completely new animals where millions upon millions of mutations would be required. But they actually happened quickly, not slowly over time. Do you not see the contradiction? We see more theories about this, that fossils are scarce and didn’t capture these intermediaries as there weren’t many of them. Ok, potential explanation for the lack of fossils, but this is what you get. Lack of evidence, add a story. That isn’t science.
Trying to be concise in responses is sometime not clear. I understand the concept of algorithms, I have no issue there. And you accept an intelligent programmer is required to program a computer. The genome, DNA, the programming language of life is far more complex than ANYTHING we can produce, yet we accept it created itself. You look at a ladybird book (sorry, are you USA? I am UK, ladybird book, simple kids book), you know it was designed, you know it was created. The complexity of life goes way beyond that. Way beyond the ratio of billions of years to 6000, yet we “accept” it just happened. It is also now being discovered that not only is DNA extremely complex, that the same genetic code in 2 different animals can be “read” in different ways and produce different results. A so called 4th dimension to DNA. But it happens by chance.
Your last comment. Exactly. I KNOW I won’t change minds on here. I know no-one will take me seriously. Despite there being lots of evidence that contradicts long ages and evolution, the consensus is set, and as you point out, the “audience” is skewed. And that is the whole point. It doesn’t matter whether you are creationist, ID, evolutionist, long ages, biblical age, you have your starting point. We can bat “evidence” about all day long. We can both interpret that evidence in many ways. NO ONE can prove which is correct. The truth is, there is probably some right and some wrong on both sides, but it can’t be proven. In all my research and study, I find the creationist scientists more open about their assumptions, and their willingness to accept new evidence. I have found secular scientists unwilling to admit to their assumptions, their world view, and unwilling to consider other view points. I think science is much poorer for this, and we certainly don’t see the breakthrough science we have seen in the past anymore, and I think that is the result of this closed mindedness.
No one was there in the beginning, no one documented what happened (I would argue the bible is the closest thing to that which we have), and no one can know what happened 6000 years ago let alone 4+ billions years ago. All we have are observations in the here and now. Everything that goes back more than a couple of 100 or so years is guess work. Even the constant of the speed of light is now being questioned. That is a theory hypothesised by some on the creationist side years ago, but it was slammed down, but now scientists are investigating whether it has truly been constant. If proven that it hasn’t been constant, that is good for some creation models, but the methods have so many assumptions, whatever the results, science will be arguing about it for years.
Science in the here and now is great.
Historic science is theory built on assumptions. And with long ages and evolution, when the theory is falsified, it isn’t dropped, another theory, or even a new force or particle is invented to bridge the gap. Sound familiar.
I do appreciate your response. These sites tend to end with a lot of insults and no discussion, this site, currently, has proven some people can be civilised, so as far as free thought is concerned, this is probably one of the free”ist” sites out there.
G
If you can’t even get trivia like this right, why should anybody take anything else you have to say seriously? Uniformitarianism and the concept of deep time originate in the late 18th century, on the basis of evidence from geology, and were widely accepted (amongst the scientific community) by the mid 19th century.
John Morales
Majority view -- it was a statement about how majority view is not necessarily correct.
http://creation.com/crichton-on-scientific-consensus
Science has it’s own naturalistic belief system and interprets evidence within that framework, so yes, science would be better with the shackles removed. But the truth is, everyone has a world view, a lens through which everything is assessed.
You mention the number of generations that would be produced over 6000 years. Interestingly, mathematically, the current population of the earth fits perfectly with a 6000 age of the earth, starting with 2 individuals 6000 years ago, slate wiped clean 4500 years ago, and the population growing from the humans that left the ark 4500 years ago. Another issue for evolution is that there are not enough humans or human remains to support their history.
http://creation.com/human-population-growth
But the genetic decline from a “perfect” Adam to now fits perfectly with the 6000 year history described by the bible.
http://creation.com/genetic-entropy
And this is a real issue, if we are genetically in decline, that is a massively different issue to solve compared to we are genetically on our way to being x-men.
Again, I know these are interpretations of the evidence with my world view, but there is nothing that is not accurate science contained within these articles.
Dunc -- you are correct, but that isn’t a factual error on my part, just being brief in response. So my statement wasn’t accurate but in the scheme of your billions of years, not really much.
If your are honest, you are being picky and clutching at straws rather than finding any serious issue with what I have said.
G
Oh, and Dunc, it wasn’t the evidence of geology that changed the view, the geology can be interpreted in many ways. It was a shift that saw all the “sciences” converge. It worked nicely that the growing theories around evolution worked better with long ages, so to interpret the geological evidence with long ages worked well. But it is an interpretation of the evidence. There are many evidences for rapid formation of observable geology, but these are argued away. Many would say that it was Lyell’s convincing arguments (as a lawyer he could be very convincing) that changed the tide and not the evidence. You see, the evidence hadn’t changed, it was the way you looked at it that changed. Lyell put a convincing case across of uniformitarianism, but the evidence that had been viewed as having been only a few thousand years old was exactly the same. You say self correcting. I say different world view.
It is amazing that we can take some images from Mars which has no visible water but can conclude it suffered from a global flood in the past. Yet with all the evidence and widespread coverage of sedimentary layers on earth and the quantity of water available on earth we can categorically state that there was no global flood.
As with all origins science. It is all interpretation. You have your world view. I have mine. If you think that there is proof of long ages, go for it. It is not provable. You have to make assumptions as to what happened in the past. Those assumptions massively affect your results. You only have to look at Mt St Helen’s to undermine the uniformitarian approach.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_1/j10_1_005-006.pdf
http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
http://creation.com/grand-canyon-uniformitarian-age-controversy
Please, find something that is scientifically inaccurate in these articles. I understand your interpretation of the evidence will be different, but find something that is not scientific rather than just dismiss them.
Well, yes. Young-earth creationism is basically no different from Last Thursdayism, and I see no point in trying to argue with a pre-suppositionalist, especially one who is obviously wrong about the well-documented history of the very ideas he’s criticising.
On, and nobody other than YECs actually thinks there was a “global flood” on Mars.
Your suppositions I would argue are equally wrong, and despite the history being “well documented”, that isn’t proof. You hide behind insults as you can’t defend the science.
Funny isn’t it, there are more copies of the Bible than any other book. More and more it is proven factually accurate, both in it’s historical accuracy and it’s prophecy. The quality of the preservation of the text exceeds any other historical and accepted document, yet you are happy to throw that out as “nonsense”, but accept a human story of the age of the earth.
You can have “well-documented” history, but that doesn’t make it correct, or scientific. Science is provable, testable and verifiable. When and how the earth was created cannot be proven. Cannot be verified. Cannot be tested. And much of the evidence crumbles under scrutiny.
Global flood on Mars. Really.
http://science.time.com/2013/03/11/the-great-and-recent-martian-flood/
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/03/09/global-flood-on-mars-where-did-the-water-go/
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-canyons-earth-mars.html
Why are there so many secular publications referring to it, if no one thinks it?? I have no opinion on it one way or another, but you can’t have your cake and eat it. If no-one believes in it, tell the scientists that appear to do so, and they aren’t creationist ones.
That just goes to prove how little we know, and how many theories are flying around.
That’s right, just like the ones were life started on earth when life descended onto earth from space.
None of it is backed by science, it is all theory, which loosely encapsulates the evidence we see now. But we don’t have a clue as to what happened years ago.
See, I am confident over time we will see further confirmation of (for example) the declining genome, and further proof confirming the theory (which is widely accepted) that I posted a link to earlier. But even then (and actually now), scientists are putting their long ages spin onto the evidence that comes to light to try and explain how we evolved to modern humans over millions of years but now we have a genome that is in decline, the opposite to what is predicted, no required, by evolution, and fits the biblical model perfectly, and is a prediction of the biblical model.
Try posting some constructive criticism. Go on, try it. You might like it. Add some science in as well if you like.
Gary synthesis:
Let’s say a human generation is 25 years.
In 6,000 years, there would have been 240 generations.
Each generation is more degenerate to the previous, and the degeneracy compounds exponentially.
Conclusion: Gen 6:4 — “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to.”
We are weakling degenerates, and the children of this generation will be more so.
(That is the message you preach — be proud of it. Every generation is lesser, and we are 239-fold lesser than were Adam and Eve.)
They’re not. None of the sources you link are talking about anything like a global flood (well, the middle one is, but only in the context of the misapprehensions of creationists).
They only “appear to do so” to you, because you’re only looking for things that support your existing (incorrect) interpretation.
This is a perfect example of why I don’t argue with creationists.
John Morales -- I don’t get your point? It isn’t what I preach.
The population of the earth is supported by a 6000 year history, mathematically.
The genome is devolving, not evolving. That is widely accepted by science.
I am not preaching. My point is, science rejects creationism without consideration. If these facts are true, then science if it were focused in the correct direction could help. But it doesn’t it assumes long ages and that we are evolving, the opposite of what is happening.
It is known that skulls are actually getting smaller.
Archaeological finds are uncovering buildings and machines that were built that we can’t replicate indicating an intelligence beyond ours.
I am not preaching any message. Well I am, will get to that. Science needs to assess the facts without a world view distortion, which it currently does NOT do. The facts suggest a future that is very different to the one science predicts.
If I were to preach a message (I won’t go into detail, your an intelligent man, and I don’t think you need me to) is that we have sinned, fall short of Gods desire for our life, and as such need to acknowledge Jesus, son of God, as our saviour. Doing so will gain eternal life, not doing so, eternal hell.
The preach you suggest I am making is that we start dying sooner then nothing, actually isn’t as bad as the truth.
In my preach, if I am correct, I have nothing to lose, whereas you have everything to lose.
I am here to debate science, not theology (although will happily do so), the numbers predict and confirm the population numbers that we have currently on the earth when looking at the biblical history. The bible predicts, Adam, the first human contained all the genetic information to allow for all the variations we see in humans today, also part of the reason for living long lives then, but that genome is in decline. That is what we see.
Don’t shoot the messenger, just cos you don’t like it, doesn’t make it wrong.
Dunc
You don’t argue, you make no case at all.
There are plenty of documents out there supporting the Mars flood theory and that mars was once completely covered in water.
1) you are again picking hairs rather than dealing with issues.
2) you present no facts
3) if you are correct, and scientists don’t believe that fact, why is it popularly understood as such by the general public? It’s a bit like many of the evidences of evolution. Presented as fact, then when proven false, never retracted, leaving the public with the illusion of all this evidence, which is crumbling away. Haeckel’s embryos are used in text books today, proven a hoax a hundred years ago. Why is that. Appendix a vestigial organ, not so. Tiktaalik was given above, but is now NOT used as an example of a transitional fossil. And on we go.
You’re right, I’m not arguing. It’s a waste of time. There’s no point in me presenting any facts when you’re not even capable of understanding what the sources you yourself are supplying actually say. You’re presenting sources which explicitly reject the argument that you’re trying to make as evidence for your argument. How could anybody argue with that?
Dunc, you are not arguing, because offer no argument.
Saying that what I say is rubbish and offer nothing in return is typical of the conversations I have on these site. I make a point, someone might make a counter argument, I counter, then it descends into insults from the long ages / evolution side. I have presented you with facts, you don’t like them, you don’t consider them. Does not make them any less facts.
You are splitting hairs on the articles I post. Yes I didn’t read them, I googled Mars flood and there are 1000s of them. So my point still stands, it is the public perception and there are many differing views. But it is believed that much of what is seen on Mars was created by water.
Yet we can’t visit Mars, we have limited ability to study it, but we “know” there was water. We know there was flooding.
On earth we can much more closely view the evidence, and there is global evidence of mass sedimentation, there is global evidence of catastrophic geologic activity. But we’ll stick with the theory that it just happened really slowly over a very long time. The “story” doesn’t fit the evidence.
http://creation.com/forked-seams-sabotage-swamp-theory
I respond here knowing that you will not take any serious consideration of anything I say, but I do hope that someone reading this does, and might open their minds and just look at the evidence out there.
So come on, lets have some intelligent conversation. Lets compare some science. Put some evidence on the table. Show me where there is proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Or the proof that the universe is 13 billion years old. Give me something. 🙂 Go on, critically evaluate something rather than dismiss it.
No, you haven’t. You’ve presented misunderstandings and misrepresentations of facts.
Well, there’s your problem. They don’t say what you think they say. Try reading some of them, you might actually learn something.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean there was a global flood.
Dunc -- I haven’t misrepresented anything. The point, as proven, is science misrepresents. I don’t care about Mars (as you well know -- hence the focus from you). The point I made (and you avoided) still stands. There is plenty of geologic evidence of a young earth, so go through the article I posted and tell me what is unscientific. You won’t, because you can’t. You can’t because the article is factual, and the facts do not work within a long ages framework.
G
You’re the one who brought it up.
Sigh. OK, let’s take an example:
This is rubbish. We can look at sedimentation layers that have been formed rapidly, and we can look at sedimentation layers that have formed slowly (both within recorded history) and we can tell the difference. The scientific approach does not assume that all sedimentation occurs slowly. It just assumes that if something formed during pre-history looks exactly like something formed during recorded history, then they are likely to have been formed by the same mechanism. Thus we can look at rock strata and tell the difference between those formed by (for example) pyroclastic flows, catastrophic mud-slides, and slow deposition in lake bottoms, because we can compare the results to the same processes occurring today.
It is still an assumption, not repeatable, provable, or testable science.
The global flood model fits the observable evidence. A global flood is a once only occurrence, we can’t repeat it. If you look at the full biblical description of the flood event, it fits. We’re not talking just the flood, this is all the volcanic activity and plate tectonics and sedimentation on a grand scale across the whole earth. You have an interpretation of that, so…..
“Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods.”
Is a perfectly acceptable statement. You can’t prove one or the other.
No, it doesn’t. There are written historical documents from various cultures around the world from the relevant time period which make no mention of any global flood. That’s observable evidence. You can count tree rings and prove that there are trees which lived right through the supposed global flood. That’s observable evidence. The geographical distribution of species is entirely incompatible with a global flood. That’s observable evidence.
Really. Wow.
There are plenty of cultures that DO share the flood story. The presence of many versions of the same story, I would say, is more compelling than the absence of some. How across those many cultures with many languages does the same story exist.
Tree rings -- double wow. Really. Assumptions are made as to the fact that only one tree ring is produced each year. Again an assumption made that isn’t necessarily correct. It has been proven that multiple rings can and do get produced annually.
http://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines
Geographical distribution of the species. Love it. You think that that lightning struck a pond, produced life, that then somehow started to reproduce, and grew in complexity as it reproduced (in a single location), and gradually became more complex and spread out to different locations, and became sexually reproducing organisms, both male and female, and spread out, and there just happened to evolve a male and female of new animals in the same location at the same time, which gradually spread out to cover the whole earth. Granted, you have more time to do it in, but really, you have the same issue, and you have to have male and female of each animal to just so happen to evolve in the same location. Wow, you think I believe in fairy tales.
http://creation.com/genetics-geographical-distribution
http://creation.com/flood-models-biblical-realism
Again, this is a realistic article that is honest about the issues with historic science (something you seem to lack) and honest about the assumptions. And yes, it does start from the basis that the bible must be right, in EXACTLY the same way as science say the answer MUST be naturalistic, and currently, that includes the paradigm of long ages. That can’t be questioned, and it doesn’t matter what evidence is presented, you and “science” will deny any evidence that doesn’t fit with your belief system. So if you think science is impartial, you are sadly wrong.
And that is the crux of the issue. It isn’t the science, it isn’t the evidence, it is a different world view when viewing that evidence, and your world view of long ages and evolution is as much a religion as my belief. You have no provable evidence of anything you have spoken of, but are willing to accept it on a bunch of observations with NO proof.
Think about what you’re saying.
And somehow you consider this evidence that there was a global flood that killed everyone on the planet except for one family?
Think about what you’re saying.
[Citations needed]
Many cultures have a flood story, but they’re all different. Anyway, pointing that fact out doesn’t change anything at all about all the cultures with continuous historical records that go right through the period of this supposed global flood without mentioning it.
C’mon, y’all -- Gary has near*-perfect spelling, and his grammar and syntax cohere fairly well.
And he hasn’t said “Bless your heart!” even once.
Pity about his epistemology, though.
How might we test the hypothesis that Gary is a chatbot equipped with a Bob Jones University syllabus?
*No, I won’t read his posts with my copy-editing eyes on w/out better reason than he’s displayed so far.
Pierce, he’s a good example of a content-free poster.
Gary@15,
Examples have already been provided to you @12, and you have simply dismissed them without providing reasons for doing so. Further examples are available here and here.
You fail to say what you mean by “a different animal”. This is sufficient evidence that you do not, as you claimed, know the subject. You also tell a direct lie, that evolutionary biologists “just believe life started from nothing”. If you actually had a case, you would be precise about your claims, and you would not need to lie.