Page 96 of 157 FirstFirst ... 4686959697106146 ... LastLast
Results 3,326 to 3,360 of 5473

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #3326
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,731

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Well somewhere back in this thread you demanded an open minded debate, and slagged people off for perceived closed mindedness. But you have demonstrated that your mind is as tight closed as a ducks cloaca in winter. Are double standards the epitome of honesty? Not in my book.
    Nailed it.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  2. #3327
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,739

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    1.Evolution and Deep Time is literally true.
    2.No other information is required, or desirable
    3.Any data will be shoehorned into #1
    No. Being science, the ideas evolve. The age of the Earth for Lord Kelvin was about 20 million years. He didn't know of radioactivity, and his assumptions of a steady-cooling, purely conductive rocky planet was shown to be erroneous. The age increased - human knowledge adjusted in the face of new information.
    Now Quantum Physics has been derided as the most absurd proposition - but accepted as undoubtedly correct because it satisifies all the outcomes required by the scientific method.
    What's the bible's take on quantum physics?
    We have seen another 'absurd' proposition proved by observation and repeatable measurements to be correct - even touugh it started with an apparently absurd proposition - that all matter in the universe will have a magnetic field that was initially, 6000 yrs ago, that of an equivalent body of water with its molecules aligned . (my paraphrase).
    Fail. It didn't start with an "absurd proposition". It started precisely in order to support an age of the Earth that lay in accordance with the bible.

    See the difference?

    Andy
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  3. #3328
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,314

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    - otherwise my comments stand.
    Bad logic Frank! Your assertions are not validated by another's refusal to refute them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Peter- are you dinkum?

    How does that fit with what I have been saying?

    Regards,

    Frank
    Peter's post does NOT fit with what you have been saying. That's because what you have been saying does not fit with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Ok Mr. whoeveryouare,
    I think you have made this comment before - would you care to explain yourself and back it up with something - or is this to be dismissed as some kind of trollish interjection?
    Note - you have included the word "dishonesty" which is not acceptable to me - unless you can make it stick.
    Regards,
    Frank
    Here we have a wee bit of honesty, if only in the form of projection. I'm surprised, Frank!, that you haven't been able to figure out yet that you're not going to gain any converts here. You have long ago discarded your "earnest student in search of knowledge" disguise. Do you really expect anything other than ridicule? Now just stamp you foot in disgust and storm off.
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  4. #3329
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    No. Being science, the ideas evolve. The age of the Earth for Lord Kelvin was about 20 million years. He didn't know of radioactivity, and his assumptions of a steady-cooling, purely conductive rocky planet was shown to be erroneous. The age increased - human knowledge adjusted in the face of new information.

    What's the bible's take on quantum physics?

    Fail. It didn't start with an "absurd proposition". It started precisely in order to support an age of the Earth that lay in accordance with the bible.

    See the difference?

    Andy
    Hi Andy,
    (insomnia rules!)

    quantum physics

    i have no idea - but it has been advanced that the reason that science took root and flourished in Judeo-Christian cultures was because their God was guy who encouraged them to go forth into all the earth, and being a God who delighted in making and keeping promises and laws, encouraged and reassured those of an enquiring mind that their endeavours would not be fruitless. (i understand the god of the Koran to be capricious - so you never know where you stand really - and other gods and idols that are athe construct of men have no higher authority - so why would you expect anything from them? So science was stillborn in these cultures - not necessarily absent, just stillborn, went nowhere..)

    "absurd proposition":

    Look, any hypothesis is a valid starting point for scientific enquiry .

    even "The moon is made of green cheese"
    The process then is to formulate a test that would validate or falsify the proposition, then conduct experiments and gather data. so if the moon rocks gathered by the first expeditions to the moon had gone down well with a glass of fine red, we might have concluded the proposition validated.

    In the same way i imagine (but have no idea) that Humphreys , pondering the problems with the existing theories regarding the earths magnetic field, (it was apparently decaying, and way too fast, and the Dynamo mechanism was not satisfactory in various ways) cast his mind around for a fresh approach. Being aware that the Scriptures mention a watery beginning just 6000 yrs ago, formulated a Hypothesis: "The Earths Magnetic Field Originated From an Equivalent Body of Water that, at the Instant of Creation 6000 yrs Ago, Had the Magnetic Moments of all its Molecules Aligned."

    ok - a ridiculous proposition - comparable to the green cheese moon - or the 3D earth to a flat earther

    but que the scientific method:

    - calculate the initial field
    - apply Lenz's law to the physical properties of the earth
    - does the resulting field match current measurements? yes? - ok good
    - Question - can we formulate a general principle or law that we can apply more widely?
    - any predictions to be made? - yes - the other planets and moons - and indeed any cosmic object .....
    - when measured, do the predicted values agree?

    No = Bummer!
    Yes = frabjous joy!

    - can critics find fault with the science, the mathematics, the chain of logic subsequent to the hypothesis

    Yes = bummer - so what went wrong? - what have we learnt, what new formulation might prove fruitful?
    No = the theory stands up, scientific knowledge is increased .....

    you get the drift,

    frank

  5. #3330
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,314

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Hi Andy,
    (insomnia rules!)

    but que the scientific method:

    - calculate the initial field
    - apply Lenz's law to the physical properties of the earth
    - does the resulting field match current measurements? yes? - ok good
    - Question - can we formulate a general principle or law that we can apply more widely?
    - any predictions to be made? - yes - the other planets and moons - and indeed any cosmic object .....
    - when measured, do the predicted values agree?

    No = Bummer!
    Yes = frabjous joy!

    - can critics find fault with the science, the mathematics, the chain of logic subsequent to the hypothesis

    Yes = bummer - so what went wrong? - what have we learnt, what new formulation might prove fruitful?
    No = the theory stands up, scientific knowledge is increased .....

    you get the drift,

    frank
    Yes. Bummer! Your logic breaks at step one.

    and:
    God who delighted in making and keeping promises and laws, encouraged and reassured those of an enquiring mind that their endeavours would not be fruitless.
    This only applies to inquiring minds. Yours is ossified, so don't go expecting God to deliver for you.
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  6. #3331
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,964

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    We have seen another 'absurd' proposition proved by observation and repeatable measurements to be correct - even touugh it started with an apparently absurd proposition - that all matter in the universe will have a magnetic field that was initially, 6000 yrs ago, that of an equivalent body of water with its molecules aligned . (my paraphrase).

    May i say that i , too, reject dogmatic assertion - from whatever source (and i declare that quite dogmatically - so there!)

    peace,

    frank
    Problem with that Frank is that Genesis is out by a couple of thousand years. The patriarchs cannot have lived beyond 125 years, so you have to lop a lot of years out of the Rev Ussher's calculation, and 4004 BC for the date of creation is bunkum.
    Then we have Psalms
    Pulpit Commentary
    Verse 10. - The days of our years are three score years and ten. This seems a low estimate for the time of Moses, since he himself died at the ago of a hundred and twenty (Deuteronomy 34:7), Aaron at the age of a hundred and twenty-three (Numbers 33:39), and Miriam at an age which was even more advanced (Numbers 20:1; comp. Exodus 2:4). But these may have been exceptional cases, and we have certainly no sufficient data for determining what was the average length of human life in the later period of the wanderings. The suggestion has been made that it was probably even shorter than that here mentioned. And if by reason of strength they be four score years; i.e. "if, through exceptional strength in this or that individual, they occasionally mount up to four score years." Yet is their strength labour and sorrow; rather, yet is their pride then but let, our and vanity. They may boast of their age; but what real advantage is it to them? After seventy, the years draw nigh when each man is forced to say, "I have no pleasure in them" (Ecclesiastes 12:1). For it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Moreover, even if we live to eighty, our life seems to us no more than a span, so soon does it pass away, and we take our departure.
    Everything is contradictory, none of it hangs together, you cannot rely on any of it for literal truth.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #3332
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,964

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    This makes interesting reading, from a member of the Anglican church.
    https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress...d-creationism/
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #3333
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,731

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Between interesting and horrifying......

    Flight from reason.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  9. #3334
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,430

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    so, Peter, if you could breed all the different species of dogs and dog-like animals from just two animals, why would you build all those extra arks?

    - and do you take the point about setting up a "Strawman" argument?

    - you have postulated a scenario quite different to the real one - and 'shown' that it is impossible (which, fair enough , it is) - but it is not the scenario in dispute!

    peace,

    frank
    How many people helped build the ark and how many people went forth and collected all the animals? How many people were saved on the ark? How long did it take to build?
    The god of the Muslims is the same god as yours. The Quran is basically the Old Testament. Oh and the Arab, sneaky buggers that they are gave us algebra, the concept of 0, named many of the stars and if it hadn’t been for them we probably wouldn’t have had the writings of the Greek philosophers whose knowledge kickstarted the Age of Enlightenment. From which we now have the many varied fields of science.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  10. #3335
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,430

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I’d like to take issue with the use of the word kind.
    • a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
      [COLOR=#878787 !important]"all kinds of music"[/COLOR]
      synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre; More








    • 2.
      each of the elements (bread and wine) of the Eucharist.
      [COLOR=#878787 !important]"communion in both kinds"[/COLOR]



    Its not a label like species or genus, it simply means more than one thing the same. Eg the same kind of pencil or the same kind of car.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  11. #3336
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,895

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Hey, you have one miracle (flooding the earth), why not as many as necessary? The animals miraculously lined up two by two and walked cheerfully onto the ark. They miraculously shrank to fit the space available, didn't need to eat or poop for the 40 days or whatever it was, didn't try to eat each other because of divine intervention, and when the flood was over reproduced at 100X their normal rate to repopulate the earth, with accelerated mutations as needed. Isn't it obvious? Once you accept biblical literalism and miracles, all things are possible, and ordinary observed reality is of no consequence whatsoever.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 02-13-2018 at 04:04 PM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  12. #3337
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    72,445

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    So, Peter - do you still need to know why Noah did not need to carry 13,000,000 animals?
    Yes, it is beyond impossible for the current genetic variation to occur from the carry capacity of your ark in the time you have allowed. The whole idea is rubbish.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  13. #3338
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,964

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    How many people helped build the ark and how many people went forth and collected all the animals? How many people were saved on the ark? How long did it take to build?
    The god of the Muslims is the same god as yours. The Quran is basically the Old Testament. Oh and the Arab, sneaky buggers that they are gave us algebra, the concept of 0, named many of the stars and if it hadn’t been for them we probably wouldn’t have had the writings of the Greek philosophers whose knowledge kickstarted the Age of Enlightenment. From which we now have the many varied fields of science.
    It was a story borrowed from the Mesopotamians and incorporated into the Jewish book.
    But there’s another reason why the angry religious crowd ought to check their outrage. The story of Noah may be part of the Abrahamic canon, but the legend of the Great Flood almost certainly has prebiblical origins, rooted in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh dates back nearly 5,000 years and is thought to be perhaps the oldest written tale on the planet. In it, there is an account of the great sage Utnapishtim, who is warned of an imminent flood to be unleashed by wrathful gods. He builds a vast circular-shaped boat, reinforced with tar and pitch, that carries his relatives, grains and animals. After enduring days of storms, Utnapishtim, like Noah in Genesis, releases a bird in search of dry land.
    Various archaeologists suggest there was a historical deluge between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago that hit lands ranging from the Black Sea to what many call the cradle of civilization, the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The translation of ancient cuneiform tablets in the 19th century confirmed the Mesopotamian flood myth as an antecedent of the Noah story in the Bible. In an interview with the London Telegraph, Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum and author of the recent book The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, described one way the tradition may have emerged:
    There must have been a heritage memory of the destructive power of flood water, based on various terrible floods. And the people who survived would have been people in boats. You can imagine someone sunbathing in a canoe, half asleep, and waking up however long later and they’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and that’s the beginning of the flood story.
    Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish. An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land. Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances — including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.
    Flood myths are so universal that the Hungarian psychoanalyst Geza Roheim thought their origins were physiological, not historical — hypothesizing that dreams of the Flood came when humans were asleep with full bladders. The religious purists now upset with Hollywood probably don’t want to hear that it’s really just all about drinking too much water before bedtime.
    http://time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/
    A comparison
    COMPARISON OF GENESIS AND GILGAMESH
    GENESIS
    GILGAMESH
    Extent of flood Global Global
    Cause Man's wickedness Man's sins
    Intended for whom? All mankind One city & all mankind
    Sender Yahweh Assembly of "gods"
    Name of hero Noah Utnapishtim
    Hero's character Righteous Righteous
    Means of announcement Direct from God In a dream
    Ordered to build boat? Yes Yes
    Did hero complain? Yes Yes
    Height of boat Several stories (3) Several stories (6)
    Compartments inside? Many Many
    Doors One One
    Windows At least one At least one
    Outside coating Pitch Pitch
    Shape of boat Rectangular Square
    Human passengers Family members only Family & few others
    Other passengers All species of animals All species of animals
    Means of flood Ground water & heavy rain Heavy rain
    Duration of flood Long (40 days & nights plus) Short (6 days & nights)
    Test to find land Release of birds Release of birds
    Types of birds Raven & three doves Dove, swallow, raven
    Ark landing spot Mountain -- Mt. Ararat Mountain -- Mt. Nisir
    Sacrificed after flood? Yes, by Noah Yes, by Utnapishtim
    Blessed after flood? Yes Yes
    Soo many similarities.
    Dating is important
    Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing — an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.
    The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)
    Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.
    Whilst
    The earliest Sumerian Gilgamesh poems date from as early as the Third dynasty of Ur (2100–2000 BCE).[4] One of these poems mentions Gilgamesh’s journey to meet the flood hero, as well as a short version of the flood story.[5]
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  14. #3339
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    72,445

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I'm amazed they managed to collect armadillos tree kangaroos and platypus in time, it must have been a long search.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  15. #3340
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,314

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Hey, you have one miracle (flooding the earth), why not as many as necessary? The animals miraculously lined up two by two and walked cheerfully onto the ark. They miraculously shrank to fit the space available, didn't need to eat or poop for the 40 days or whatever it was, didn't try to eat each other because of divine intervention, and when the flood was over reproduced at 100X their normal rate to repopulate the earth, with accelerated mutations as needed. Isn't it obvious? Once you accept biblical literalism and miracles, all things are possible, and ordinary observed reality is of no consequence whatsoever.
    But the beauty of all this, Keith, is that true believers don't need to waste their time studying science -- science has got it all wrong anyway.
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  16. #3341
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    72,445

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    We still have to convince 13 million animals to cooperate cos mutations don't happen that fast.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  17. #3342
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,895

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    If you allow miracles (like enormous blobs of water with the magnetic field of every molecule aligned) then the observed behavior of things is utterly irrelevant. Anything you want can happen. With God all things are possible.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  18. #3343
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    72,445

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    "Honey ,I shrank the animals !"
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  19. #3344
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,964

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    We still have to convince 13 million animals to cooperate cos mutations don't happen that fast.
    Faster than you think
    The Rev Ussher was out by about 2000 years. So the flood happened at 735 BC if you use the Septuagint genealogy.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #3345
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,895

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    "Honey ,I shrank the animals !"
    No more miraculous than a flood in the first place. If God messes with the world, he is by no means constrained by the ordinary laws of physics.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  21. #3346
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    72,445

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    We'll ask Frank.... but it isn't mentioned in the Biblical account and I'm sure it would have been noticed !
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  22. #3347
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,739

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Well, the following is in the account. Perhaps he can help?

    Day one of Genesis, the unnamed third-person narrator (who he?) states that we get light. Day four is the creation of the Sun and all the other 1*10^24 stars, planets and what-not. Isn't this a tiny bit of a stumbling block to fully-literal interpretations?

    Andy, confused
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  23. #3348
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    Yes, it is beyond impossible for the current genetic variation to occur from the carry capacity of your ark in the time you have allowed. The whole idea is rubbish.
    care to provide the proof?

  24. #3349
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    72,445

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    No, you wouldn't believe anything outside Genesis anyway.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  25. #3350
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,964

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    care to provide the proof?
    It is in the fossil record. You got any solid evidence that independently cross references your folk story that requires evolution of all species in a thousand years?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  26. #3351
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,430

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    care to provide the proof?
    Care to provide proof it is possible?
    The logistics of collecting the animals, collecting the building materials, milling the timber to build the ark with just Noah and his family don't add up Frank. He didn't have a huge workforce because he only took his family. No one is is going to help build the ark if they aren't getting a ride.
    I did a bit of ferreting around and found this gem.
    VI. The Cargo
    1. The Human Passengers. II Pet. 2:5 says 8 souls were saved. We assume this means Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives.
    2. The Animal Passengers. In Gen. 6:19ff. Noah is instructed to bring mated pairs of every kind of bird, every kind of animal, and every kind of creature that moves along the ground. In Gen. 7:2ff. He is more specifically instructed to bring seven mated pairs (14) of clean animals and seven pairs of all birds.
    a. The Number of animals. Only air-breathing animals needed to be included on the Ark. Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today. We might double this to allow for extinct species. This would gives us 36,000 species times 2, or 72,000 animals. Adding for the clean animals, we might say there were as many as 75,000 animals. Earlier we said there was room enough in the Ark for 125,000 sheep, but most animals are smaller than a common house cat. There appears to be plenty of space for the preservation of the animal life. However, some creationists believe there may have been far fewer animals if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two!

    b. The Care of the animals. Noah was instructed to include food for the animals (Gen. 6:21). How Noah and his small family could have cared for this large menagerie is unknown, not to mention the sanitation problem! What we must remember is that this event, i.e., the Flood, had supernatural elements. For instance, the animals came to the Ark against their natural instincts (Gen. 6:20). It is therefore reasonable to assume, as some creationists do, that the animals' metabolism may have been slowed down during their confinement, even to the point where some of the animals may have gone into a state of hibernation.
    Do you get the impression the author is making it up as he goes along?
    Two types of dogs...er no I don't thing so.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  27. #3352
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Frank, help me out please mate.

    Last year, the 50 red roses kept me in the good books for weeks after Valentine's Day.

    It's Valentine's Day again tomorrow and I brought half a dozen long stem reds... and the goodwill only lasted 30 seconds.

    What's the scientific basis, please?
    would if i could - but dont know where you are coming from .....

    - but i rather suspect you have just jumped in to join the chorus .

    then again, i suspect i miss some of the 'clever ' subtleties posted here.......

  28. #3353
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Care to provide proof it is possible?
    The logistics of collecting the animals, collecting the building materials, milling the timber to build the ark with just Noah and his family don't add up Frank. He didn't have a huge workforce because he only took his family. No one is is going to help build the ark if they aren't getting a ride.
    I did a bit of ferreting around and found this gem.

    Do you get the impression the author is making it up as he goes along?
    Two types of dogs...er no I don't thing so.
    whyncha check then?

  29. #3354
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    No, you wouldn't believe anything outside Genesis anyway.
    Peter - you are seriously not understanding me.

  30. #3355
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Hey, you have one miracle (flooding the earth), why not as many as necessary? The animals miraculously lined up two by two and walked cheerfully onto the ark. They miraculously shrank to fit the space available, didn't need to eat or poop for the 40 days or whatever it was, didn't try to eat each other because of divine intervention, and when the flood was over reproduced at 100X their normal rate to repopulate the earth, with accelerated mutations as needed. Isn't it obvious? Once you accept biblical literalism and miracles, all things are possible, and ordinary observed reality is of no consequence whatsoever.
    Keith, in common with the braying herd here, you are seriously underestimating the quality and competence of some who have given the matter serious and intelligent consideration.

    It does you no credit to bring it down to this level .....

  31. #3356
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by webishop14 View Post
    Yes. Bummer! Your logic breaks at step one.

    and:
    This only applies to inquiring minds. Yours is ossified, so don't go expecting God to deliver for you.
    not sure what you mean - but i suspect that you have not been paying attention

    perhaps you would like to modify my exposition of the scientific method?

  32. #3357
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by webishop14 View Post
    Bad logic Frank! Your assertions are not validated by another's refusal to refute them.



    Peter's post does NOT fit with what you have been saying. That's because what you have been saying does not fit with reality.



    Here we have a wee bit of honesty, if only in the form of projection. I'm surprised, Frank!, that you haven't been able to figure out yet that you're not going to gain any converts here. You have long ago discarded your "earnest student in search of knowledge" disguise. Do you really expect anything other than ridicule? Now just stamp you foot in disgust and storm off.
    no - but it does mean that they still stand unrefuted

  33. #3358
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,430

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    whyncha check then?
    I was curious as to what tools he would have had. My guess is pre iron age so bronze axe and adze...not something I would want to build a boat with but hey apparently it took him 120 years.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  34. #3359
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Back to the Peppered Moth and SINEs

    TwoDot has declined to answer the call (probably wise)

    The Peppered Moth saga has proved to be junk science - at least the part i will call Mark 1. - the "originally there were light and dark moths, then a sooty environment favoured a preponderance of the dark variety, but when the environment was cleaned up , the lighter colours staged a comeback" part.

    This is Natural Selection - yes - and unquestioningly accepted by all scientists, evolutionist or creationist .

    But note! no new potential has been demonstrated!

    Que Mark 2.

    an article was posted that referred to the appearance of a "Black" variety, that i think they were trying to say was not present before IIRC 1849 (or 1812? - ).

    they traced this new type to a specific gene at a specific location (IIRC) - and i understand the inference to be that this demonstrated Evolution because new potential had arisen that was not present before. One small step , but it is postulated that many more such steps accumulating and operated upon by selection processes could account for the appearance (in time) of all life forms .....

    However i came across a reference to "Jumping genes" (or SINEs?) and the point was made that this appeared to be an example of such a gene which 'jumps in' to a critical position in the DNA strand and causes a new variation to express. (in this case a totally black moth?)

    I picked up (forgive me , i am no expert in this - which is why i await some competent commentary) - that these jumping genes are not a random phenomena - they usually seem to insert in just the place where they perform a useful function. This is not a random event - this is not evolution - and i understood this to be perhaps under the direction of some part of the DNA usually classified as "Junk".

    that would be important for junk DNA is an argument for Evolution - so, not junk , no evolution

    Plus, introducing another level of feedback and control, beyond the normal coding level of DNA introduces a whole new level of complexity likely beyond the capacity of natural selection to operate. this would be fatal for Evolutionary theory?

    I post this for the consideration of all.

    regards,

    frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 02-15-2018 at 10:26 AM. Reason: 'Mark' rather than 'Part' ......

  35. #3360
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,964

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post

    I picked up (forgive me , i am no expert in this - which is why i await some competent commentary) - that these jumping genes are not a random phenomena - they usually seem to insert in just the place where they perform a useful function. This is not a random event - this is not evolution - and i understood this to be perhaps under the direction of some part of the DNA usually classified as "Junk".

    regards,

    frank
    Think on this. If the mutation caused by the jump or any other random event is not beneficial it will not be passed on. So a random mutation can trigger evolutionary change. The "selection" part of evolution deals with what happens to the new genes after they occur. If they are beneficial they survive, if harmful the carrier reproduction mechanism (life form) will not breed to pass them on.
    So the arrival of the gene for black colour as a random event and its being passed on as it conferred a survival benefit is evolution at work.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •