Ken Ham's Ark

[danielwoods]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I think daniel woods is probably right on this one.  I cited an academic book by Koehler and Baumgartner, two great Hebrew scholars!  I also cited another academic book by Francis Brown. All of them agree about Gen 1 "day of twenty-four hours"  

That "day" in Gen 1 means a period of time in Hebrew is probably a myth I used to believe. 

 Science demonstrates that Earth is about 4 billion years old. 

Agreeing with me is dangerous. Be prepared to be attacked on all sides. 

Its good you didn't agree with me at the end of your post. 

Unfortunately science can't demonstrate even one million years let alone 4 billion. Remember science is based on observation and calibration. The problem of checking the calibration of a billion year old clock to measure those years still exists. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Unfortunately science can't demonstrate even one million years let alone 4 billion. 

True, science can't demonstrate that our world was not created five minutes ago, or that we are not a brain in a bat. 

However, Science makes predictions! Evolution is the most successful theory in Science.  

 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

However, Science makes predictions! Evolution is the most successful theory in Science.  

I am pretty sure the theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity, and the germ theory of disease are all far more useful and far more established. What exactly do you mean by successful or did you just blurt that out without thinking?

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Finding a certain mineral and knowing where it's deposited is one thing. Knowing when it was deposited is a completely different thing requiring the exercise of faith. Unless you are claiming that someone directly observed these formations 230 million years ago and has a time machine that can duplicate that for everyone else to see?

You continue to argue from a point of ignorance. If minerals/coal/fossils (you name it) were lain down randomly from Noah's flood there would be no science in finding minerals/coals/fossils. Everything would be a complete mish-mash. Dinosaur fossils would be lying next to rabbits trapped in sandstone.

I've mentioned Neil Shubin before. He knew where to go to find the right kind of rocks to find the his famous discovery of Tiktalik. 

Your time table requires that geological events happen in fractions of time (instead of years, thousands or millions of years; in seconds and million parts of seconds). That would be fully possible, if we lived in a world where a geological event, such as layering of sandstone,  continued to happen in milliseconds. You'd have to show that events such as Mt. St. Helens happened all the time with similar layers of light ash. A simple dig through volcanic layers in other places around the world will demonstrate the fallacy in such thinking. 

You repeat the tiresome "if no one saw it happening, it didn't happen". As I stated, an argument from ignorance. You need to equip yourself with a shovel, pick and hammer. Start in your backyard and dig down thirty meters. Get back to me when you start needing to use dynamite.

Or head out into the dry, desert areas south-east of Salt Lake City, like Moab. You can't dig in the many park areas (take some time to contemplate why these areas were made into national parks) but there are a number of study areas. Reflect on the path of the small creek that meanders through Moab, its formation and reasons for its lazy S and U curves through the rocks.

Only by actually, physically, digging through rocks will you ever come to an understanding that these rocks were not deposited in a few years, that the layers on top are the youngest and the deeper you dig, the older the rocks get.    

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure the theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity, and the germ theory of disease are all far more useful and far more established. What exactly do you mean by successful or did you just blurt that out without thinking?

Excuse me. Am I hearing you right? Is this the well known Nehor who is questioning another poster about "blurting out...without thinking". I'm disappointed. I was sure you were the "Master of Blurt". 

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, danielwoods said:

There is much that one has faith in when making statements of certainty. The problem or deception is when it's not called faith but something else like "science" or "I'm just following the evidence". If that were true then no other interpretation of the evidence could be made. 

I'm simply pointing out that it is a faith based statement not science or fact based. 

Science is not faith based. The very fact you are using one of the most scientifically advanced devices ever made  by man proves it.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Excuse me. Am I hearing you right? Is this the well known Nehor who is questioning another poster about "blurting out...without thinking". I'm disappointed. I was sure you were the "Master of Blurt". 

No, my title clearly says I am "Death, Destroyer of Worlds". Please pay more attention in the future.

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, my title clearly says I am "Death, Destroyer of Worlds". Please pay more attention in the future.

I stand corrected, oh, Lord of Death, Destroyer of Worlds. I grovel before thee

[TheSkepticChristian]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure the theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity, and the germ theory of disease are all far more useful and far more established. What exactly do you mean by successful or did you just blurt that out without thinking?

1. Modern science understands Evolution better than gravity, quantum mechanics, and relativity. In fact, gravity is poorly understood

2. Evolution has survived tough scientific scrutiny for 150 years. 

3. Evolution makes a flood of predictions. 

4. We can use a flood of methods to verify Evolution. 

5. Evolution explains a flood of complex facts in our world. 

 That is why Evolution is the most successful theory in Science. Do you know of another scientific theory with so much success? 

I am still waiting for scholarly articles on old testament studies and theology? Please! 

Edited August 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

On 8/5/2016 at 6:13 PM, danielwoods said:

There is much that one has faith in when making statements of certainty. The problem or deception is when it's not called faith but something else like "science" or "I'm just following the evidence". If that were true then no other interpretation of the evidence could be made. 

I'm simply pointing out that it is a faith based statement not science or fact based. 

But it is science based. Science is about interpreting evidence. And while there is more than one way to interpret any one piece of evidence, no scientific theory apart from evolution successfully accounts for the totality of evidence, regarding the development of life on earth.

So it's really a matter of your faith, which doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, vs the faith of scientifically minded people, whose faith does hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

On 8/5/2016 at 11:03 PM, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure the theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity, and the germ theory of disease are all far more useful and far more established. What exactly do you mean by successful or did you just blurt that out without thinking?

We still don't know what gravity is, QM  is still working on the basis of unproven math, and we're still working on figuring out Germ Theory. Evolution is the basis of all modern medicine.

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

But it is science based. Science is about interpreting evidence. And while there is more than one way to interpret any one piece of evidence, no scientific theory apart from evolution successfully accounts for the totality of evidence, regarding the development of life on earth.

So it's really a matter of your faith, which doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, vs the faith of scientifically minded people, whose faith does hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Agreed.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I stand corrected, oh, Lord of Death, Destroyer of Worlds. I grovel before thee

Stop. You are making me blush. While I appreciate your grovelling tasteful and discreet fawning over me is more then sufficient.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

1. Modern science understands Evolution better than gravity, quantum mechanics, and relativity. In fact, gravity is poorly understood

I said nothing about understanding. I said that the others are more useful and more established by which I meant proven. It is true we do not understand how these work but they are incredibly useful.

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

2. Evolution has survived tough scientific scrutiny for 150 years. 

How long a scientific theory has withstood scrutiny is not that important.

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

3. Evolution makes a flood of predictions. 

Yes, but they tend to be less specific then those of the theories I mentioned. If quantum theory is even a little wrong your GPS would not work. If gravity was imprecise the space program would be a mess. If relativity were not real we would not be able to figure out how to adjust satellites to keep them accurate with the earth. Evolution rarely says we should expect to find remnants of species A that has characteristics B and C and then find it and it fits perfectly. Instead the new data has to be factored in. It is not a weakness of the theory itself that it cannot completely predict because the changes within a species are to some degree random, though of course selected for survivability, but it does make it less useful for predictions and less practical (i.e. useful).

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

4. We can use a flood of methods to verify Evolution. 

A global or regional flood of methods?

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

5. Evolution explains a flood of complex facts in our world. 

Yes.

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 That is why Evolution is the most successful theory in Science. Do you know of another scientific theory with so much success? 

No, I am convinced that it is not the most successful theory.

And yes, I do know of theories with more success. I listed a few.

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am still waiting for scholarly articles on old testament studies and theology? Please! 

The Google-fu is weak in this one.

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We still don't know what gravity is, QM  is still working on the basis of unproven math, and we're still working on figuring out Germ Theory. Evolution is the basis of all modern medicine.

Again, I said they are more useful and more established (by which I mean testable and predictable).

No, biology is the basis of all modern medicine. There are attempts to integrate a more evolutionary approach into medicine but it has faced problems.

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I said nothing about understanding. I said that the others are more useful and more established by which I meant proven. It is true we do not understand how these work but they are incredibly useful.

How long a scientific theory has withstood scrutiny is not that important.

Yes, but they tend to be less specific then those of the theories I mentioned. If quantum theory is even a little wrong your GPS would not work. If gravity was imprecise the space program would be a mess. If relativity were not real we would not be able to figure out how to adjust satellites to keep them accurate with the earth. Evolution rarely says we should expect to find remnants of species A that has characteristics B and C and then find it and it fits perfectly. Instead the new data has to be factored in. It is not a weakness of the theory itself that it cannot completely predict because the changes within a species are to some degree random, though of course selected for survivability, but it does make it less useful for predictions and less practical (i.e. useful).

A global or regional flood of methods?

Yes.

No, I am convinced that it is not the most successful theory.

And yes, I do know of theories with more success. I listed a few.

The Google-fu is weak in this one.

Again, I said they are more useful and more established (by which I mean testable and predictable).

No, biology is the basis of all modern medicine. There are attempts to integrate a more evolutionary approach into medicine but it has faced problems.

My OP, I get to move the goalposts.

Whichever theory is the most useful is like arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. A waste of time.

I understand evolution better than I understand gravity. I understand evolution better than I understand quantum mechanics. I understand evolution better than I understand the theory of relativity. But then again, I don't understand electricity but I use it every day.

Because I understand evolution I don't need magic to explain why dinosaur fossils are not mixed up with rabbit skeletons in any undisturbed dig. Because I understand evolution I don't need to hitch my wagon to the ludicrous idea that the earth is 6,000 (give or take a few thousand) years old. Because I understand evolution the idea, that as a homo sapien my DNA is 90+% similar to other primates, doesn't frighten me. 

Because I understand evolution I will never waste the time nor 40$ to wander around Ken Ham's giant wooden, unfloatable ripoff.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I said nothing about understanding.

isn't it a success to have a good understanding? 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but they tend to be less specific then those of the theories I mentioned. If quantum theory is even a little wrong your GPS would not work. If gravity was imprecise the space program would be a mess. If relativity were not real we would not be able to figure out how to adjust satellites to keep them accurate with the earth

Relativity and quantum mechanics are in conflict, there is a big problem in our understanding of both. That is why a cosmic black hole has a singularity.  

Evolution makes more specific predictions and it is more falsifiable, that is why it is more successful. 

Quote

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:

• Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
• Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
• Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
• Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
• Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:

• Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
• Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
• Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
• Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
• Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
• Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
• http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

isn't it a success to have a good understanding? 

Relativity and quantum mechanics are in conflict, there is a big problem in our understanding of both. That is why a cosmic black hole has a singularity.  

Evolution makes more specific predictions and it is more falsifiable, that is why it is more successful. 

 

That is part of success but not all of it.

More specific predictions? I doubt that but am willing to be educated. Please provide a comprehensive list of all predictions made by relativity, quantum mechanics, Gravity, and evolution and then we can count them. Sound fair?

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Please provide a comprehensive list of all predictions made by relativity, quantum mechanics, Gravity, and evolution and then we can count them. Sound fair?

Okay, but only after you cite scholarly articles on Old Testament studies and theology by Nibley.  Sound fair? 

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Okay, but only after you cite scholarly articles on Old Testament studies and theology by Nibley.  Sound fair? 

Nah, since you were the one who started demanding I do research for you I think it is only fair that you go first. Once you comply I will give you the a few of those articles you keep relentlessly demanding.

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nah, since you were the one who started demanding I do research for you 

No, it is a CFR. You are the one making claims, I am still waiting for you to back them up. 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

. Once you comply I will give you the a few of those articles you keep relentlessly demanding.

I already did, I gave you some references. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, biology is the basis of all modern medicine. There are attempts to integrate a more evolutionary approach into medicine but it has faced problems.

Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

SEE https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No, it is a CFR. You are the one making claims, I am still waiting for you to back them up. 

As you just did and you refused my CFR. At least there is symmetry.

[danielwoods]

On August 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

You continue to argue from a point of ignorance. If minerals/coal/fossils (you name it) were lain down randomly from Noah's flood there would be no science in finding minerals/coals/fossils. Everything would be a complete mish-mash. Dinosaur fossils would be lying next to rabbits trapped in sandstone.

I've mentioned Neil Shubin before. He knew where to go to find the right kind of rocks to find the his famous discovery of Tiktalik. 

Your time table requires that geological events happen in fractions of time (instead of years, thousands or millions of years; in seconds and million parts of seconds). That would be fully possible, if we lived in a world where a geological event, such as layering of sandstone,  continued to happen in milliseconds. You'd have to show that events such as Mt. St. Helens happened all the time with similar layers of light ash. A simple dig through volcanic layers in other places around the world will demonstrate the fallacy in such thinking. 

You repeat the tiresome "if no one saw it happening, it didn't happen". As I stated, an argument from ignorance. You need to equip yourself with a shovel, pick and hammer. Start in your backyard and dig down thirty meters. Get back to me when you start needing to use dynamite.

Or head out into the dry, desert areas south-east of Salt Lake City, like Moab. You can't dig in the many park areas (take some time to contemplate why these areas were made into national parks) but there are a number of study areas. Reflect on the path of the small creek that meanders through Moab, its formation and reasons for its lazy S and U curves through the rocks.

Only by actually, physically, digging through rocks will you ever come to an understanding that these rocks were not deposited in a few years, that the layers on top are the youngest and the deeper you dig, the older the rocks get.    

You continue to claim that by digging I would know or realize that these layers were laid down horizontally and not sideways. But what is missing is the reason why you think digging would change my view? 

It's almost as if you think there are no geologists who hold the same view as I do. 

By the way one of my favorite canyons to drive through is just south of St. George on I-15. 

[danielwoods]

On August 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Gray said:

But it is science based. Science is about interpreting evidence. And while there is more than one way to interpret any one piece of evidence, no scientific theory apart from evolution successfully accounts for the totality of evidence, regarding the development of life on earth.

So it's really a matter of your faith, which doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, vs the faith of scientifically minded people, whose faith does hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Sorry but I disagree. 

There are many different world views held by people on earth. Each of them has explanations that fit the data. Each of them also have weaknesses where they their explanations come up short. 

The materialistic view has issues with the origin of life and what they call a singularity. 

The theistic view has the problem of evil. 

So, no matter which view is held, faith is involved. What I am attempting to point out is the limitation of science. 

Whether ones faith is held up by scientific scrutiny is itself a faith position. For example I think it was Hawking that has stated that Science makes God unnecessary. In his view the laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator. 

Which is itself a proclamation of his faith, not science. Why would I say that? Because it can't be tested. For example where did the laws of physics come from, that he relys on? I believe that he might say that they always have been. Yet, that again isn't a statement of fact but belief. 

Why mention this then? Because it is a deception which leads to greater deceptions. That's all. I guess my question is why don't Hawking any others simply frame their proclaimamtions honestly as statements of faith?

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Sorry but I disagree. 

There are many different world views held by people on earth. Each of them has explanations that fit the data. Each of them also have weaknesses where they their explanations come up short. 

The materialistic view has issues with the origin of life and what they call a singularity. 

The theistic view has the problem of evil. 

So, no matter which view is held, faith is involved. What I am attempting to point out is the limitation of science. 

Whether ones faith is held up by scientific scrutiny is itself a faith position. For example I think it was Hawking that has stated that Science makes God unnecessary. In his view the laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator. 

Which is itself a proclamation of his faith, not science. Why would I say that? Because it can't be tested. For example where did the laws of physics come from, that he relys on? I believe that he might say that they always have been. Yet, that again isn't a statement of fact but belief. 

Why mention this then? Because it is a deception which leads to greater deceptions. That's all. I guess my question is why don't Hawking any others simply frame their proclaimamtions honestly as statements of faith?

Of course, for any position, faith is involved. It's just that your faith-based position is not scientific. I think that should be clear, yes? It's you against the scientific materialism, right? (setting aside the fact that Mormonism is also materialistic)