Aryottama

I'm new here, so bear with me if I sound obtuse.

As far as I can see, the creationist/ID position exists only because the Bible exists, and creationists believe the Creation story in it to be true, because they believe everything in the Bible is true.

But I haven't heard of Bible mathematics. In Chronicles we are told of a basin with a diameter of 3 units and a circumference of 10, I think. This of course makes pi a rational number with a value of 10/3.

If the Bible is true, the same sort of people who gave us Creationism should give us Bible math, with this type and value of pi elevated to dogma.

The fact that they won't be able to construct a reasonable wheeled wagon on this basis can of course be blamed on the obstructive stupidity of people like Archimedes and all the secular mathematicians since that time.

I think the main reason that this hasn't been done is that this type of mathematics all too obviously won't work; whereas it seems we can argue creationist biology endlessly.

The real answer to the creationists is quite simple: the X-Files is not a documentary series. Neither is the Bible. Both should be labeled "For Amusement Only", and the shelf the Bible lives on at the bookstore should be marked "Fiction".

Then those who want Biology can go look on the proper shelf, and stop wasting everyone's time.

tgamble

I agree. I pointed out that this argument was still used in my response to AIG's response to the SA article.

Atticus_Finch

Obviously, a creationalist believes that the first bear(s) were the result of special creation. I admit that an instance of special creation is not scientifically testable. It, by definition, exceeds the limits of science. Therefore, this debate usually boils down to 2 themes. One, is the extant evidence after special creation consistent with special creation. Two, is the extant evidence inconsistent with the competing theory of life originating from inorganic material (a process which to my knowledge has never been scientifically verified) and then evolving from a simple one celled creation to you (if you assume that humans are the highest form of life on this planet).

As I stated in my original post, I am not an expert in this area and only posted because no one else did. Grant me the liberty to answer your last questions with a question or two. By what process is new genetic information added? If new genetic material can be added through some process, is the resulting individual able to reproduce with the unaltered members of its species?


Regards,

Finch

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

tgamble

Would you be so kind as to reveal what extant evidence would NOT be consistent? Typically poor design claims get 1 of 2 responses.

1) It's the result of sin.

2) the design isn't poor. You're just to stupid to understand it and god doesn't have to justify his design because he is perfect and all knowing and any design he uses is perfect by definition and any perceived imperfection is the result of your god hateing bias for which you deserve to rot in hell.

Or something like that.

Tabula_rasa

To be completely honest, at one point in my life I distinctly remember feeling the way that you do. I won't go into too many details, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since.

As a former lurker in the early days of Usenet, I was able to pick up more science, more quickly by paying attention to all of the wonderful people who didn't think it was a waste of their time to educate. This only bolstered what I was able to get out of reading. The documented word, by it's very nature is out of date. What better way to learn than through the people who are doing the research? I also do not feel that it is a waste of time.

Obviously, you are free to feel differently. The solution to that should be painfully obvious.

Abacus

I'll take stab at this, though I'm not a biologist.

The process is by mutations occuring.

Maybe. Maybe not. This is where the filter of natural selection comes into play.

Abacus

I've thought about it some, and I find this idea kind of odd. How can the "first bear" have all of the genes (information) that we see in today's various species. You seem to be implying that there was once a bear (two bears?) that had all of the genetic information already to produce polar bears, grizzly bears, black bears, panda bears, etc.

Applying this to humans, that must mean that Adam & Eve had all of the diverse genes that we see today in some 6+ billion human beings. Unless I'm confused, you seem to be saying that the gene pool was as large (or larger) "in the beginning" as it is today. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tabula_rasa

You are absolutely correct. Supernatural forces are definitely outside the realm of science, and therefore cannot be tested. Not a very instructive hypothesis. [ I meant to add this in the original post: It should be very clear that the ID hypothesis is "nothing - *poof* - bear." ]

Are bats a separate type from rodent? Are flying squirrels a transitional toward a new type?

Abiogenesis? That theory is quite separate from the Theory of Evolution. It would be nice if scientists (through natural processes, mind you) were able to create life in a test tube tomorrow. But nature had a half billion years at it (at most) and several million at it (at least). Science has only had about sixty years of trying. However, the science of abiogenesis has advanced quite considerably since the initial Miller-Uray experiments. Maybe you aren't familiar with how far it has advanced. Here's a good link, and a very easy read, to get an idea: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html" target="_blank">Abiogenesis FAQ @ TalkOrigins</a>

That link also provides the mathematics to refute the statistical claims by Creationists who like to cite Fred Hoyle.

And here's a link to some books: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html#ABIOGENESIS" target="_blank">Abiogenesis books</a>


There is no such thing as "highest lifeform." What I do know to be true is that we are one of the most prolific mammals ever to walk this planet. Most mammals mate once a year. Our species received a reproductive advantage by mating every month of the year. Coupled with our ability to use tools, we have become quite dominant on this planet. Far from being the "highest lifeform" we are but a small branch on the bush of life.

</strong>

Sure, I have no problem with you asking questions with questions. Of course, I assume you will allow me the same consideration

In response to the first question: You snipped the answer to your question when you replied to my previous post. Maybe you didn't read that part? Maybe you didn't understand it? I was curious why you didn't respond to that part. Why did you snip it?

In response to your second question:
Actually, this is something that has been docmumented, tested and confirmed by science. But for further reading regarding macroevolution, I refer you to this wonderful FAQ:<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">29+ evidences for macroevolution</a>

It's rather lengthy but definitely worth the read.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Tabula_rasa ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

First, let me say that I wish there were someone better versed in this topic than me to provide a response. My understanding is that the genetic differences between the human "races" is non-existent. We are all the same. This seems to be supported by the recent research into mytrochondrial (sp?) DNA which suggests that all humans are descended from a common female ancestor. As an aside, that certainly would support the Genesis account.

With respect to bears, yes I believe that the theory states that the first bear had all the genetic material to produce all the other bears. My understanding is that we all have tons of DNA which is not active or we don't understand how it operates. Over time, certain mutations eliminated or turned off portions of a group of bear's DNA or natural selection highlighted certain attributes, which led to the diversity of bears we see today.


Regards,

Finch

Atticus_Finch

What did I "snip"?

Regards,

Finch