Changes

::: I'll start by admitting I wasn't in the best of moods when I replied, and could have kept the debate more civil, for that I'm sorry. My problem is that I feel like I'm searching for answers but only being given half truths or interpretations.

::: I'll start by admitting I wasn't in the best of moods when I replied, and could have kept the debate more civil, for that I'm sorry. My problem is that I feel like I'm searching for answers but only being given half truths or interpretations.

::: In the first few hundred years after a global flood, I could not begin to imagine what the environment might be like. I have no idea if I'm honest; there would most likely be a wealth of plant and insect life in some areas, and if we accept that God willed for no creatures but those on Noah's Arc to survive, there would be a distinct lack of animal life. I would imagine that it would not take many years for desert to be re-established however, owing that only very specialized plants can exist for ''any'' length of time without rainfall. I would also imagine that the environment in the years after a global catastrophe would not be a stable environment, but I wouldn't

::: In the first few hundred years after a global flood, I could not begin to imagine what the environment might be like. I have no idea if I'm honest; there would most likely be a wealth of plant and insect life in some areas, and if we accept that God willed for no creatures but those on Noah's Arc to survive, there would be a distinct lack of animal life. I would imagine that it would not take many years for desert to be re-established however, owing that only very specialized plants can exist for ''any'' length of time without rainfall. I would also imagine that the environment in the years after a global catastrophe would not be a stable environment, but I wouldn't like to go beyond that.

like to go beyond that.

::: "''If you've got enough of the animals around...''" Surely after "Noah's" flood there were only a limited number of animals, who then also had to be in adolesence, or between dependency and maturity?  

::: "''If you've got enough of the animals around...''" Surely after "Noah's" flood there were only a limited number of animals, who then also had to be in adolesence, or between dependency and maturity?  

::: The story I get is this; that Noah's arc has successfully traversed a global flood. The animals are then set free and set to disperse across the land as they choose. The creatures are venturing off in all directions across the Earth, to find their new homes in what is currently a brutally ravashed planet. The roos head towards the Australian continent - I would assume - by travelling the tough, mostly mountainous route through modern Pakistan and India towards South East Asia, or alternatively, assuming they

::: The story I get is this; that Noah's arc has successfully traversed a global flood. The animals are then set free and set to disperse across the land as they choose. The creatures are venturing off in all directions across the Earth, to find their new homes in what is currently a brutally ravashed planet. The roos head towards the Australian continent - I would assume - by travelling the tough, mostly mountainous route through modern Pakistan and India towards South East Asia, or alternatively, assuming they are the right age, floating a great distance towards the Southern tip of India. From here they passed through Thailand and Malaysia and then set off to Indonesia - given that sea levels were much lower and assuming therefore that land was more accessable - where they had to face their first sizeable stretch of water. This they crossed with the right timing between being dependent and fully grown, and also with the right timing that they could populate this new found home without being followed by the predators who had hunted them across the rest of the world, wiping out their ancestors and therefore leaving the only remaining colony and fossil records upon a giant continent 6500 miles from their original starting place. Please excuse me if I've missed any details and allow me to add that this seems highly far-fetched to me.

are the right age, floating a great distance towards the Southern tip of India. From here they passed through Thailand and Malaysia and then set off to Indonesia - given that sea levels were much lower and assuming therefore that land was more accessable - where they had to face their first sizeable stretch of water. This they crossed with the right timing between being dependent and fully grown, and also with the right timing that they could populate this new found home without being followed by the predators who had hunted them across the rest of the world, wiping out their ancestors and therefore leaving the only remaining colony and fossil records upon a giant continent 6500 miles from their original starting place. Please excuse me if I've missed any details and allow me to add that this seems highly far-fetched to me.

::: Yes, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy of earth-age, I didn't have time to double check the figures on that. That is an interesting point about the evolution rate. It would seem it would have needed to be a "hot" period for evolution, e.g. more changes than one every 41,000 generations. If this is the general rate of evolution then it hardly seems likely for human beings to have evolved in a "short" space of time from a common ancestor. It should be noted as well though, that the bacteria in Lenski's research were not exposed to the number of environmental variations as evolving human beings would have been, and given that natural selection is based on environmental interaction, this is likely to affect the rate of evolution. There are also recent genetic theories which may make the idea more plausible, by suggesting that evolution works on codes that an organism already has embedded in it's genetic data, and that there is a method of "''unlocking''" these unused genes. I don't know the exact science behind this so it's only a theory, but obvisouly this would create the capacity for a quicker rate of visible changes in species if it was observed.

::: Yes, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy of earth-age, I didn't have time to double check the figures on that. That is an interesting point about the evolution rate. It would seem it would have needed to be a "hot" period for evolution, e.g. more changes than one every 41,000 generations. If this is the general rate of evolution then it hardly seems likely for human beings to have evolved in a "short" space of time from a common ancestor. It should be noted as well though, that the bacteria in Lenski's research were not exposed to the number of environmental variations as evolving human beings would have been, and given that natural selection is based on environmental

::: That was my point for the age of the earth - that there would be a more complete fossil record if the earth was only 6,000 years old, but if the earth were ≈ 4 billion years old, you would expect to find gaps in the fossil record. Radiodating may not be absolutely accurate, nor the science fool-proof, but it can safely give the conclusion that something is very old, and when coupled with other data this is usually accepted as fact. Given that, it is not true that the fossils we find, which are recorded as being older than any historical records to accompany and verify them, should be rejected as absolutely false. Besides that, there is other evidence which points to an earth older than 6,000 years - evidence of the Ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian and Ancient Mesoamerican cultures being some, and reference by Egyptian Pharaohs such as Khufu, and philosophers such as Plato and alike who speak of ancient races, thousands of years before their own [http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ataw102.html].

interaction, this is likely to affect the rate of evolution. There are also recent genetic theories which may make the idea more plausible, by suggesting that evolution works on codes that an organism already has embedded in it's genetic data, and that there is a method of "''unlocking''" these unused genes. I don't know the exact science behind this so it's only a theory, but obvisouly this would create the capacity for a quicker rate of visible changes in species if it was observed.

::: I understand the difference between observations in that sense. What I meant was that Darwin travelled to the very corners of the earth to sudy animals, plants, geology, fossils and the conclusion he drew was based on his observations of his environment. It is an observable hypothesis in that you can visit remote islands and see the mutations or adaptations which have occured to species there in a relatively small amount of time, and there is even a definite divergence in remote populations in the homo genus [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html]. What you have seemed to outline to me is that creationist science accepts gene mutation, but not as dramatically as ''"goo-to-man"'', so it is a matter of degree which we are debating.

::: That was my point for the age of the earth - that there would be a more complete fossil record if the earth was only 6,000 years old, but if the earth were ≈ 4 billion years old, you would expect to find gaps in the fossil record. Radiodating may not be absolutely accurate, nor the science fool-proof, but it can safely give the conclusion that something is very old, and when coupled with other data this is usually accepted as fact. Given that, it is not true that the fossils we find, which are recorded as

::: ''"as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved..."'' You seem to have mistaken my point for an argument against the existence of God? I was using it as an argument ''for'' the existence of God; that all scientific study we do into the history of the earth and the universe is in reality a study into God's mind before the ultimate conception of human beings. The appearance of fingernails and hair etc. are not appearances of age, nor proof that God ''didn't'' create Adam, they would be - if Adam had a full head of hair and fully grown fingernails - an apparent sign that he had ''grown'' fingernails and hair, as human beings are born mostly without. The argument was an argument that seeks to bring together scientific discovery with religious belief by saying that all scientific exploration into an ancient universe is acceptable as long as we remember that we are exploring into the history of the world in the mind of God, rather than any physical reality. It was more addressed out of interest than as something I believe.

being older than any historical records to accompany and verify them, should be rejected as absolutely false. Besides that, there is other evidence which points to an earth older than 6,000 years - evidence of the Ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian and Ancient Mesoamerican cultures being some, and reference by Egyptian Pharaohs such as Khufu, and philosophers such as Plato and alike who speak of ancient races, thousands of years before their own [http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ataw102.html].

::: I understand the difference between observations in that sense. What I meant was that Darwin travelled to the very corners of the earth to sudy animals, plants, geology, fossils and the conclusion he drew was based on his observations of his environment. It is an observable hypothesis in that you can visit remote islands and see the mutations or adaptations which have occured to species there in a relatively small amount of time, and there is even a definite divergence in remote populations in the homo genus

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html]. What you have seemed to outline to me is that creationist science accepts gene mutation, but not as dramatically as ''"goo-to-man"'', so it is a matter of degree which we are debating.

::: ''"as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved..."'' You seem to have mistaken my point for an argument against the existence of God? I was using it as an argument ''for'' the existence of God; that all scientific study we do into the history of the earth and the universe is in reality a study into God's mind before the ultimate conception of human beings. The appearance of fingernails and hair etc. are not appearances of age, nor proof that God

''didn't'' create Adam, they would be - if Adam had a full head of hair and fully grown fingernails - an apparent sign that he had ''grown'' fingernails and hair, as human beings are born mostly without. The argument was an argument that seeks to bring together scientific discovery with religious belief by saying that all scientific exploration into an ancient universe is acceptable as long as we remember that we are exploring into the history of the world in the mind of God, rather than any physical reality. It was more addressed out of interest than as something I believe.

::: ''"The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible."'' Most of the original geologists, biologists and other scientists who uncovered some of the mysteries of the earth were in fact Christian. Even Darwin himself was Christian, and he did not seek in any way to disprove the Bible when he began his studies. As is the scientific way, he made his observations and drew his conclusions based upon them. I suppose it comes down to a single principle, that I believe the Bible is ''another man's interpretation'' of the word of God, given that it was written by men, and opposing that, you believe that it is the ''literal'' word of God. And we will probably never get past that. However, my belief is that scientific problems do not arise solely from someone who ''didn't believe'' the Bible. The scientific problems would arise say, from someone who had never read the Bible. If he studied the rocks of the earth, and from his data concluded everything about the earth as scientists had, and concluded it to be ≈ 4 billion years old, then, should he one day come to read the Bible, he would not accept it as being the word of God in any capacity, and definitely not literally. However, someone who read the Bible, was taught with the belief that it was the literal word of God and had maybe even had a religious experience in their life would, upon reading the first man's work, believe him to be lying or making it up. The second man may then seek to prove the first man wrong, even though the first man believes he has already proved the second man wrong. The second man may interpret things differently or find flaws in the first man's findings and then challenge his views. The first man would respond with his own data and in turn challenge the views of the second man and so on and so on, untill no resolution is found. If both men just admitted they were both partially wrong, and that neither of them could claim to know everything, then the two men together would be able to share their wealth of knowledge and even gain a new level of understanding of the universe. Or so I wish.

::: ''"The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible."'' Most of the original geologists, biologists and other scientists who uncovered some of the mysteries of the earth were in fact Christian. Even Darwin himself was Christian, and he did not seek in any way to disprove the Bible when he began his studies. As is the scientific way, he made his observations and drew his conclusions based upon them. I suppose it comes down to a single principle, that I believe the Bible is ''another man's interpretation'' of the word of God, given that it was written by men, and opposing that, you believe that it is the ''literal'' word of God. And we will probably never get past that. However, my belief is that scientific problems do not arise solely from someone who ''didn't believe'' the Bible. The scientific problems would arise say, from someone who had never read the Bible. If he studied the rocks of the earth, and from his data concluded everything about the earth as scientists had, and concluded it to be ≈ 4 billion years old, then, should he one day come to read the Bible, he would not accept it as being the word of God in any capacity, and definitely not literally. However, someone who read the Bible, was taught with the belief that it was the literal word of God and had maybe even had a religious experience in their life would, upon reading the first man's work, believe him to be lying or making it up. The second man may then seek to prove the first man wrong, even though the first man believes he has already proved the second man wrong. The second man may interpret things differently or find flaws in the first man's findings and then challenge his views. The first man would respond with his own data and in turn challenge the views of the second man and so on and so on, untill no resolution is found. If both men just admitted they were both partially wrong, and that neither of them could claim to know everything, then the two men together would be able to share their wealth of knowledge and even gain a new level of understanding of the universe. Or so I wish.

:::I have enjoyed this debate, even if I would have liked to establish some more common ground, and I hope I haven't offended you - through my ignorence or otherwise - because that is not my objective. In truth, I am selfishly wanting to learn but selflessly wanting to teach, and I hope you appreciate this and can show the patience you have so far. Thanks for your time.

:::I have enjoyed this debate, even if I would have liked to establish some more common ground, and I hope I haven't offended you - through my ignorence or otherwise - because that is not my objective. In truth, I am selfishly wanting to learn but selflessly wanting to teach, and I hope you appreciate this and can show the patience you have so far. Thanks for your time.

::: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

::: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)