MrDarwin

BTW Ed, couldn't the same be said for evolution? If God knows all the consequences and all the outcomes, then why couldn't God have used evolution for creating humans and all other life?

Ed

Yes, it has no rational basis for explaining the subject-object correlation necessary for science.

lpetrich

Which I consider a non sequitur. I don't see how that is the case. And if Ed's argument was valid, it could just as well prove that Islam is the One True Religion. Or Hinduism.

And what, precisely, is "subject-object correlation", anyway?

MrDarwin

Ed, please make sense.

Ed

I should have been more clear, what I meant was the genealogies are not important for determining the age of the universe or the date of the flood. They are important for showing how God has used ordinary people to accomplish his purposes and for the first reason you mention above. But not for the second because some of Jesus' ancestors were not what would be called great in the eyes of most people.

Quote:

lp: Which leads to the question of what would *not* be an example of such an event. Ed: Any event that can reasonably be explained by natural laws or human design and activities. As shown in the scriptures 99.9% of events are not supernatural. lp: I've yet to see any such claim in the Bible, let alone a clear conception of natural law.

It is implied. The timeline that the scriptures cover is the beginning of the universe, ie up to 15 billion years ago, up until the first century AD. Out of all that time the number of supernatural events is actually quite small compared to the number of natural events in 15 billion years. Also natural law is plainly implied in Job and the Psalms. And the NT says that "God is a god of order".

Quote:

Ed: Well a god that was not invented by men is not going to do things that we think he ought to do. lp: An ingenious, all-purpose excuse. Ed: Nevertheless, a logical conclusion. lp: Thus making it a hypothesis that can explain anything, and thus really nothing.

Hardly. In science the thing that is most unexpected is often the correct answer to a problem.

Quote:

lp: (how the Egyptian Book of the Dead states that one ought to assert that one has not committed various sorts of mischief...) Ed: Egyptian religion does not treat women as well as Christianity does. lp;Ingenious comeback. It must be embarrassing to discover that other societies have "real" moral codes.

Actually, the fact that other societies have moral codes is evidence for the existence of a moral God. For how can morality come from amorality? And there is no rational basis for morality if there is no God.

Quote:

Also, Pharaonic Egyptian religion had female as well as male priests, which is more than could be said of nearly all of Christianity until recent decades.

But most of the female priests were used as prostitutes.

Quote:

LP: (gene duplication: two dogs, one who chases cats and one who chases squirrels...) Ed: No, your genes are not specific enough they dont carry enough information. You have to specify that there are two dogs or that there was a sequence in time. Then the cat then the squirrel etc. lp: The specification of two dogs is directly analogous to a gene duplication (one -> two).

No, a gene is analogous to a sentence, so if you say "The dog chases a squirrel. The dog chases a cat." You are implying that it is the same dog so they cancel each other out and no information is communicated. Gene duplication would just be the same sentence repeated, thereby showing that gene duplication does not increase information.

Quote:

lp: How is DNA supposed to have a "languagelike" code? Ed: The genetic code is composed of letters (nucleotides), words (codons or triplets), sentences(genes), paragraphs(operons), chapters(chromosomes), and books(living organisms). lp: Nice analogy, but it's only an analogy, and it does not prove that it was "designed" by anything. One can find other such hierarchies of structure in various other systems.

Not where the information is unrelated to the mode of transmission, only language and the genetic code have that characteristic, so it is identical to language.

Quote:

lp: And as Michael Turton will tell you, archeologists don't work that way. They don't have some criterion for separating designed from non-designed objects; they instead try to consider if some object could reasonably have been made by human beings. Ed: I don't see any difference. How do you tell if something has been made by humans? I.e. how do you tell the difference between an arrowhead shaped rock and an arrowhead? lp: I'm not familiar with this subject, but the trick is to see if it shows evidence of having been shaped in some systematic way, some way that natural erosion would not produce. This means being hit with another rock in certain places and stuff like that.

Exactly. That is how you tell whether the object has been designed or not. If the object does not show signs of having been produced by natural law or chance, then it is probably designed. That is all specified complexity is.

Quote:

Ed: Some fish are very sensitive to water hardness, so possibly in the past other organisms were more sensitive to their environment but later on they microevolved "toughness". lp: It's salinity levels, not mineral content, but the principle is correct. However, these changes in salinity tolerance are proposed on purely ad hoc grounds, to somehow "explain" why the fish survived Noah's Flood.

It is just like the ad hoc explanations of evolution, all I am doing is extrapolating characteristics of living creatures onto similar creatures in the past.

Quote:

Ed: I don't consider when the flood occurred a critical question. I consider whether the Christian God exists much more critical, then everything else will eventually fall in place. How come the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable? lp: But why are you advocating the occurrence of a planetwide flood? And accepting the existence of the Christian God does NOT make everything fall into place -- consider the numerous sects that Christianity is divided into.

It makes the Flood a likely event to have occured. All Christian denominations that accept the primary authority of the scriptures agree on the basic essentials.

Quote:

Ed: It is not an evasion. I have not decided when the flood occurred, I am waiting for more biblical and scientific evidence. What is wrong with that? Especially since I dont consider it a very important issue. lp: But why are you making a big issue out of that supposed flood, Ed?

Huh? I am not making a big issue out of the flood, you and the other atheists are. If you look at the old EOG thread that we started on you will see that I NEVER initiated the flood discussion, I just responded to you all's comments to demonstrate that atheists should not be so dogmatic regarding their dismissal of the flood.

Quote:

Ed: Have you read any of Dembski? He uses the SETI program in his book "Intelligent Design" as an example of specified complexity. ... lp: However, that concept is never used by any mainstream SETI researcher. Can you explain why it seems to be useless to them? Ed: Though they may not call it that, they nevertheless DO use the concept. Otherwise they would not be able to separate background noise from a message from ET. lp: I'm somewhat familiar with the SETI concept, and "specified complexity" is not used anywhere. Instead, the SETI guys ask what an artificial radio signal might look like and what a non-artificial radio signal would look like. Natural radio sources are all broadband, while artificial ones are often narrowband (<~ 1 Hz for TV carrier waves, IIRC; the broadcast content takes up a few MHz). Thus, SETI has focused on detecting narrowband signals.

Exactly, see above about the arrowheads.

Quote:

lp: Furthermore, the question of artificiality has led to numerous controversies in astronomy. The first pulsar discovered was called LGM-1 at first, out of the hypothesis that "little green men" were running a radio beacon. But since then, a more plausible hypothesis has emerged: that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. The "canals" of Mars got called that as a result of a mistranslation of Schiaparelli's observation of "canali", which means something like "channels" in Italian. However, to English-speakers, "canal" suggests something artificial, and some astronomers, like Percival Lowell, worked out in detail why he thought the Martians were building them -- as giant irrigation ditches, with what we see being a strip of irrigated cropland. But when spacecraft were sent to Mars, it turned out that these "canals" or "channels" did not exist -- they were the result of connect-the-dot perception by some observers of Mars. But by no means all; some had claimed that they could never see the "canals". More recently, there has been an abundance of controversy over the "Mars Face", which is real, but which is more likely a byproduct of erosion.

Of course we are going to make mistakes about determining design, but that is true in any scientific endeavor.

Quote:

LP on Ed invoking the big-sediment view of Noah's Flood. Ed: I have not decided on which view of the flood is correct. And I don't consider it of extreme importance. lp: But why are you making an issue out of it?

I am not, see above.

Quote:

LP: what mutation saturation is... Ed: The genome reaches a point where mutations no longer are able to occur therefore evolution no longer occurs for the organism. This shows that there are limits to biological variation. Which is what creation predicts and these limits produce the "kinds". lp: Mutations can always occur, and the genome can do a random walk in sequence space.

No, what the article meant was that DELETERIOUS mutations reach a saturation point and therefore evolution ceases.

Quote:

Ed: Read Michael Denton's "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis" for some of the problems in that area. lp: Which has some serious misunderstandings of molecular-evolution research. Ed: Be specific. lp: Michael Denton later conceded that he had misunderstood molecular-evolution family trees; he had been perplexed over them in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. In particular, he misunderstood how "more evolved" and "less evolved" species can have the same amount of genetic distance from their common ancestor. This is because the molecules often used were under the same selection pressures for all the different ancestors, meaning that all the mutations would be selected from the same OK subset. This means an approximately constant rate of accepted mutations, which means equal sequence distances.

How can selection pressures for ancestral species molecules be determined?

Quote:

lp: This is actually something of an ideal case; rates of molecular evolution do vary, but they can be calibrated by comparing to the fossil record.

And how did you figure this out lp?

Quote:

lp: Because of being incorporated into the genome of some ancestor of both those species. Ed, I'd be surprised if you really understood that article; such incorporated viruses can be used to work out evolutionary family trees -- which agree with those worked out from other sources. Ed: I have no problem with ancestral species. The family trees are highly speculative however. lp: What makes such family trees "highly speculative"?

Because they are based on historical extrapolations and disputable "transitional" forms.

Quote:

Ed: Its called research, we need more of it. ... lp: Actually, there has been an abundance of paleoecological research; just consult the professional literature. Ed: We will need more than just an abundance. lp: And what, specifically, will we need? Ed: Probably 100 years of intensive research. lp: Which will likely end up rediscovering what the mainstream scientific community has discovered.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote:

Ed: No, the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by evolutionary scientists ... lp: Who? Be specific. This is a very serious accusation. Ed: Some (Gould and Leakey) think it was Teilhard de Chardin. lp: Possibly as a practical joke. However, TdC is not every paleoanthropologist, let alone every evolutionary biologist.

Hardly, he just wanted his pet theory to be true so bad. I never said that every anthropologist and biologist produces fraudulent data. But some get a little over enthusiastic about their theories and sometimes overlook things that might cause problems for their theories.

Quote:

Ed: ... Would evolutionists ever give up the flawed philosophy of naturalism? I seriously doubt it. lp: Why is it supposed to be flawed?

See above about subject-object correlation.

Quote:

Ed: Again his present evolutionary beliefs are irrelevant to the evidence that he presented in his book, most of which still stands against Darwinian evolution. Also, in one his statements you quoted above he talks about ancestral DNA sequences. There is no such thing for most organisms that lived at the time of Gondwanaland. So I acknowledge that even Michael Denton makes mistakes. lp: So what do you think had happened to MD's views? Also, what MD seems to be proposing is some sort of vitalistic force that drives evolution.

Maybe he saw that his career would end if he kept criticizing evolution. Just a hunch! Pantheism opens up whole other can of worms, ie serious problems.

Quote:

lp:And did organisms which lived in Gondwana have no DNA?

Of course they did, but we dont have any samples of their DNA, so we know next to nothing about their sequences.


[b] True.

lpetrich

Which is not directly stated in the Bible. Yes, it has to be directly stated, otherwise one is likely to consider some different interpretation more likely.

I've written some documentation for some software features I've written, and every now and then, someone asks me about this or that feature. I don't blow them off by adopting an attitude like the Biblical God according to Ed. Instead, I try to explain anything unclear, and I've sometimes rewritten parts of the documentation to make it clearer.

I'm a far-from-omnipotent creator, but I'm nevertheless a creator. And I believe that I am not a dummy.

Ed dismisses some traditionally favorite parts of the Bible; these miracles are considered very worth presenting.

Like evolution by natural selection?

And how is this unexpected-is-best tendency supposed to be a general rule?

Which means that the Bible is wrong about being an exclusive revelation.

Also, "moral" behavior can be a result of evolution. Bees in a hive do not sting each other indiscriminately, wolves in a pack do not try to have each other for dinner, etc. There is adaptive value for "moral" behavior, because it enables successful cooperation.

Evidence: {}

Also, what's so bad about being a prostitute?

Ed shows absolute ignorance of molecular biology; I wonder why his biology teachers never seem to have told him about how genes work. A gene does not really correspond to a sentence. Instead, it's more like some instructions for making a protein; sets of three nucleotides specify each amino acid. Gene duplication increase information, because the new gene can specify a protein with a different sequence. (there are also some RNA genes, but the principle is the same)

I still don't see the connection. Being languagelike need not indicate design; I note that much of human-language use might best be described as semiconscious, sort of like being well-coordinated. When you speak, you don't concentrate on how to move every single muscle in your mouth; your thoughts are more high-level, such as how to say some words or express some concepts.

And what counts as "accepting the primary authority of the scriptures"? And what of the Christian sects that supposedly don't?

But you've been talking about it for an awfully long time. Ed, stop whining and start accepting responsibility for your actions.

Sorry, still a non sequitur. Calling something "specified complexity" in some after-the-fact fashion does not prove very much.

Indirectly, by comparing present-day function and seeing what extrapolations can be made to past function.

One can also compare rates of evolution of different parts of a gene, such as rates of evolution of different sites, and "synonymous" vs. "nonsynonymous" evolution rates. "Synonymous" rates are rates of evolution between nucleotide triplets (codons) that code for the same amino acid; "nonsynonymous" rates are between codons that code for different ones.

Synonymous changes are selectively neutral, and their rate is a result of the rate at which mutations escape gene-repair systems. Nonsynonymous ones are not, and are generally slower, since some possible amino acids at some position will impair the protein's functionality. And in fact, there is a strong negative correlation between amount of functional constraint and rate of molecular evolution, which fits this picture very well.

However, proteins can sometimes be selected for different functions, and one sometimes finds evidence of that in the form of bursts of evolution relative to related proteins.

There's some literature on doing exactly that, such as finding out from the fossil record when horse and rhinoceros ancestors become so much alike that they become indistinguishable. One then sequences some horse and rhino genes with the same functions and compares them and derives an average rate of evolution from them.

How are they any more speculative than your ad hoc hypotheses about Noah's Flood?

Whatever precisely that is supposed to be.

Like what problems?

And maybe he came to understand what mainstream biologists had been talking about.

Oolon Colluphid

'Scuse me Ed, but it's my turn to have my points answered...

Oolon

Ed

Maybe, and your point is.......?

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin: So you believe that the fossil strata in question were laid down before the flood, and were essentially unchanged and undisturbed by the flood? Ed: Depending on which flood model, it could be that almost all the strata was laid down by the flood or almost none of it. lp: Big-sediment vs. little-sediment, as it were. A real scientist would try to decide which one, if either of them, is right; Ed instead prefers to use these possibilities to evade criticism. Thus, when challenged on the big-sediment hypothesis, he waves around the little-sediment hypothesis, and when challenged on that hypothesis, he claims that Noah's Flood is somehow not an important issue. Which is totally dishonest when one examines the verbiage he has spouted on the Noah's Flood question, especially his seeming advocacy of the big-sediment hypothesis.

How am I being dishonest? I am just presenting both Christian views. But as I stated earlier I am not a geologist so I don't know all the evidence for and against the views and like you said I dont consider it of extreme importance.

Quote:

About trilobites.... Ed: Most paleontologists believe they were slow-footed and slow witted. Only a few would be swept into higher sediments and with such a small number fossilization is unlikely. lp: WHICH paleontologists? Ed: Most all paleontologists. lp: Says who? I've recently consulted some sites on trilobites, and they claim no such thing.

What do they claim? That they were as smart and fast as porpoises?

Quote:

lp: However, floods have a tendency to mix things up -- and not produce the neat layering and alternations of different sorts of rocks that one finds. Ed: I think some hydrologists would disagree with you on that. lp: However, many places contain alternations of coarse-grained and fine-grained rock, when after a big flood, the coarse-grained sediment would settle first, and then the fine-grained sediment.

Not necessarily. Its a little more complex than that.

Quote:

Ed: I think I have defended both views. But I am being honest by telling you I am undecided on which view is correct. lp: Admit it, Ed, if those are views you are not really convinced of, why are you defending them? Furthermore, they contradict each other; contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

Well I am pretty sure that one or the other will be found to be correct. I know they contradict each other duhh.

Quote:

lp: And why not consider the position that Noah's Flood is pure mythology? Ed: Because it is written as historical narrative and according to the grammatico-historical hermeneutic such stories are meant to be taken literally. lp: And how was that figured out? Show the details of this derivation. A real scientist would not hide details of his/her work.

Well I am not a Hebrew scholar but compare the Genesis flood story with the flood story in the Psalms and you will learn the difference between historical narrative and poetry.

Quote:

lp: Which is pure hokum. Ed, which position are you now taking? Big sediment or little sediment? Ed: Both. Which contradict each other.

No kidding.

Quote:

Ed: Hello Cora. Maybe cycads preferred the lower elevation swamps. ... lp: Ed, maybe Jesus Christ had been homosexual, he with his 12 male Apostles and his beloved male disciple and he and Judas kissing and all. Ed: There is evidence that points to ancient cycads preferring high moisture habitats which is characteristic of low elevation wetlands. So there is evidence for my contention and none for Jesus being homosexual. Kissing was a standard greeting in the ancient middle east and even still today in some areas. Aren't you being a little ethnocentric? lp: Ed ought to present his evidence that cycads had preferred such habitats in the past.

I have forgotten where I saw it, I will have to look it up.

Quote:

lp: And I was presenting that JC-was-homosexual possibility to get you to think about how you endlessly toss out ad hoc hypotheses, O Ed.

How are they ad hoc?

[b] See above why I defend both hypotheses.

lpetrich

That that version has less of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

Ed, your advocacy of both big-sediment and little-sediment Flood Geology gives new meaning to the term "two-faced". And you clearly attach enough importance to be worth dragging in little-sediment FG just when you were losing in big-sediment FG. Which gives more new meaning to "two-faced".

What a weird miracle flood Noah's Flood was (sarcasm). And I take it that you are currently supporting the big-sediment version.

Being straight narrative doesn't prove anything about historicity.

Because they are tossed out with no apparent justification other than to rescue the Noah's Flood hypothesis.

Coragyps

My original point was comparing cycads to cypress trees - there aren't any cypresses in the fossil record for a long, long time after cycads appear. We have established, I think, that this is NOT due to cypresses being able to run up the hill faster than cycads - cypresses DO have knees, but no legs or feet. Cypresses certainly prefer a swampy lowland environment, as a trip from New Orleans to Lafayette, Louisiana will make rather clear. But there is a 200,000,000 year or so gap in the fossil record from the Carboniferous heyday of the cycad to the birth of the cypress. And a Flood has a challenge in explaining that gap. A challenge that I don't think it can rise to. Pun intended.