[__ Science __ ] A very long Wednesday... Young Earth and Old Universe Creationism reconciled?

[Jim Parker]

I found there was more to the Giraffe than met the eye:-
https://creation.com/giraffe-neck-design

Great article.
It has been said that "The devil is in the details." When the details are presented, as in the case of the giraffe, the proposition that this animal developed over multiple millions of minute mutations, each of which gave the mutant an advantage in procreation over it's rivals, the story becomes absurd.
The article demonstrates quite clearly that Mr. Miller's mousetrap "refutation" is a con job and he's a "flim-flam man."

 

[chessman]

we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

Your example of a reptile that is more like a bird than other reptiles is _________?

 

[New Day Coming]

A more recent and in depth talk by the same speaker on the topic of the OP. This goes into greater scientific detail for anyone who is interested enough to dig deeper...

 

[Jim Parker]

A more recent and in depth talk by the same speaker on the topic of the OP. This goes into greater scientific detail for anyone who is interested enough to dig deeper...

He said that he was using scripture to explain science.
That is fraud.
That is abuse of the language of the Bible to support a particular view of scripture.

So, sorry, but this guy doesn't cut the mustard exegetically, linguistically, scientifically or theologically. He's trying to force the language into a field where it was not intended to be used and he does so in translation, not in the original languages.

I'm sure he sells books, videos, and fills pews but it is, IMHO, flim-flam.

 

[New Day Coming]

He said that he was using scripture to explain science.
That is fraud.
That is abuse of the language of the Bible to support a particular view of scripture.

So, sorry, but this guy doesn't cut the mustard exegetically, linguistically, scientifically or theologically. He's trying to force the language into a field where it was not intended to be used and he does so in translation, not in the original languages.

I'm sure he sells books, videos, and fills pews but it is, IMHO, flim-flam.

I respectfully disagree on all points, Jim. I think we have different perspectives on scripture, truth and the nature and scope of science to debate this. If you start with different presuppositions you reach different conclusions. The examination of the real roots of those presuppositions are beyond the scope of the topic.

 

[Jim Parker]

I think we have different perspectives on scripture, truth

Apparently we do have different perspectives on Scripture. The Bible is not a science book and it is fraudulent to use Modern English words from a western, scientific, culture as "then meaning" of the dead language from an ancient, eastern, pre-scientific, pre-industrial, agricultural culture.

As for different perspectives of truth. The word of God is truth. But what people do with the word of God is not necessarily the truth.

 

[jasonc]

I respectfully disagree on all points, Jim. I think we have different perspectives on scripture, truth and the nature and scope of science to debate this. If you start with different presuppositions you reach different conclusions. The examination of the real roots of those presuppositions are beyond the scope of the topic.

while I am a yec, type, the problem of this debate is that it assumes that Genesis was meant to tell us that method of God in how He created, it clearly doesn't. it wasn't meant to. it is meant to point us that God created the things we see and are part of. its simple and meant to convey a simplistic and yet deep message of just that. I am not missing the problem with evolution and so forth, but the means of which God creates isn't mentioned.

 

[jasonc]

the six day account, God rested on the seventh, a central tenant of Judaism.

 

[Jim Parker]

the six day account, God rested on the seventh, a central tenant of Judaism.

Does God need to rest?

 

[jasonc]

Does God need to rest?

No.but I do believe the idea is that God rested from creating in that He made all that He choose

 

[Jim Parker]

No.but I do believe the idea is that God rested from creating in that He made all that He choose

The word rendered "rested" at Gen 2:2 would be clearer in Modern English as "ceased from".

 

[jasonc]

The word rendered "rested" at Gen 2:2 would be clearer in Modern English as "ceased from".

Context ,I guess from reading up on Hebrew thought.work 6,rest on the 7th.meaning more work will be but rest in the provision given.God made this all and was satisfied on His work .

 

[Jim Parker]

God made this all and was satisfied on His work .

He saw that everything He had made was very good.

 

[New Day Coming]

while I am a yec, type, the problem of this debate is that it assumes that Genesis was meant to tell us that method of God in how He created, it clearly doesn't. it wasn't meant to. it is meant to point us that God created the things we see and are part of. its simple and meant to convey a simplistic and yet deep message of just that. I am not missing the problem with evolution and so forth, but the means of which God creates isn't mentioned.

I had a think about your response, one I might equally have made myself - "it assumes that Genesis was meant to tell us that method of God in how He created".

I agree that Genesis may well give no indication of the HOW, but on the other hand, it may! Over the years I have heard and have confidently pronounced myself what the Bible is "for" and what it is not. I have changed my mind on its scope and significance more than once.

 

[jasonc]

I had a think about your response, one I might equally have made myself - "it assumes that Genesis was meant to tell us that method of God in how He created".

I agree that Genesis may well give no indication of the HOW, but on the other hand, it may! Over the years I have heard and have confidently pronounced myself what the Bible is "for" and what it is not. I have changed my mind on its scope and significance more than once.

It's not a science book.the used words are to vague to be an scientific definiton.

I could post the human shoulder anatomy and you would see a very specific mentioning of its working.this does that.

The two chapters gives us little.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Reptiles aren't a species. They are a class of organisms. A "kind", in creationist terms. And yet we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

Your example of a reptile that is more like a bird than other reptiles is _________?

Compsognathus, Archaeopteryx, velociraptor, alligators.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100114-alligators-dinosaurs-birds-lungs-breathing/

Not only are the living examples genetically more similar to birds than to other reptiles, they have key anatomical features like the avian breathing system, and structure of the ear that show that they are a single group with a common thecodont ancestor. Birds, dinosaurs and crocodilians are archosaurs, and form an ingroup with all other reptiles the outgroup.

For example, a bit of heme (part of the hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex fossil. When tested, it turned out to be more like that of birds than that of other reptiles. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted.

 

[Barbarian]

I watched the Ken Miller "mousetrap refutation" and concluded that he is a fraud.
What he did was to modify one necessary part for the one he removed. But he did not reduce the number of parts by having one part fulfill two functions. All the necessary parts are still there.
This is the kind of slight of hand trick that demagogues use

So does evolution. For example, Behe's clotting cascade turned out to be not irreducibly complex when simpler forms were found. Miller explains.

Having made unsupported claims about the "danger" of such a mutation, Behe says that it would be difficult to see what "advantage" this would present to the organism. The answer, of course, is that it would provide a slight improvement in the organism's ability to clot blood - and that's the point. The clotting system doesn't have to work full-blast right away. In a primitive vertebrate with a low-pressure circulatory system, a very slight improvement in clotting would be advantageous, and would be favored by natural selection.

Behe then wonders how the circulating protease could become localized at the site of a clot, as if this were an insurmountable difficulty. It's not. As I suggested in my original draft on the evolution of clotting, a well-understood process called exon shuffling could have placed an "EGF domain" onto the protease sequence, and the "problem" that Behe puzzles over is solved in a flash.

Finally, Behe emphasizes that the real problem is not to generate a clot - it is to "regulate" that clot by means of an inhibitor of the protease so that it doesn't become destructive. But that's not a problem for evolution, either. As usual, Behe envisions a clotting protease that is just as powerful as the fully-evolved proteases in modern vertebrates. However, remember that this is the same guy who fretted a moment or two ago that the protease would not be strong enough to clot effectively. He wants to have it both ways. The answer to his objection is just what I wrote in the draft
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html

Like Miller, evolution used one thing for more than one purpose early on. Later, there were two separate things.

Behe has since admitted that it's possible for irreducibly complex features to evolve, which is not a big deal, since Behe already admits that evolution is a fact. We've even seen it happen. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[Barbarian]

I found there was more to the Giraffe than met the eye:-

https://creation.com/giraffe-neck-design

Which of the structures mentioned in that article is not found in humans? They all exist in humans, albeit not as large or as developed as in Giraffes. The one-way blood vessel valves, for example, exist in humans for the save reason they exist in giraffes. We also have spinal processeses, and other ungulates have them as well-developed as in giraffes.

Likewise the fascia on lower legs exist on other animals, including man. As giraffes grew, everything got bigger, tougher, etc. It would be useful for giraffes to have more neck vertebrae, but that did not happen; that would require greater changes than making things bigger and more robust.

If we look at various existing and extinct members of the giraffid group, we see that neck length gets relatively greater as the body gets absolutely bigger. This is called "allometry." So pronghorn antelopes are not very large, and have necks only slightly longer than other ungulates. Okapis are large animals and have relatively longer necks. We see that in fossil giraffes as well. Bigger speciments have relatively longer necks. There's no magic to making it work, though. It's just making various parts bigger and more robust.

 

[New Day Coming]

Which of the structures mentioned in that article is not found in humans? They all exist in humans, albeit not as large or as developed as in Giraffes. The one-way blood vessel valves, for example, exist in humans for the save reason they exist in giraffes. We also have spinal processeses, and other ungulates have them as well-developed as in giraffes.

Likewise the fascia on lower legs exist on other animals, including man. As giraffes grew, everything got bigger, tougher, etc. It would be useful for giraffes to have more neck vertebrae, but that did not happen; that would require greater changes than making things bigger and more robust.

If we look at various existing and extinct members of the giraffid group, we see that neck length gets relatively greater as the body gets absolutely bigger. This is called "allometry." So pronghorn antelopes are not very large, and have necks only slightly longer than other ungulates. Okapis are large animals and have relatively longer necks. We see that in fossil giraffes as well. Bigger speciments have relatively longer necks. There's no magic to making it work, though. It's just making various parts bigger and more robust.

OK...

Try the Bombardier beetle out with your analysis then...

https://answersingenesis.org/creepy-crawlies/insects/bombardier-beetle-arsenal-insect/

The "evolutionary" shuffling towards completeness version of this creature would be more like a terrorist with a home made suicide vest!

 

[chessman]

we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

alligators

Maybe I’m not understanding what you meant with your original claim (re-quoted above) correctly because I’m just not seeing your response as supporting it in any way. So to clarify;
Is it your claim that through scientific observation someone can rightly observe that an alligator (for example) is more like a pink flamingo (a bird) than it is like a crocodile? That is, an alligator is either anatomically, behaviorally or genetically (or all three I suppose) “more like” flamingos than a crocodile?