Why do You Believe the World is only 6.000 years old? (Darwin, Biblical)

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Whilke I disagree with the Young Earth position, I always find it interesting that pro creation sites are ignored because they are ... pro creation, yet pro Evolution sites are deemed factual. Ain't true. I prefer to examine the Facts and avoid such silly denials of information by either side of the issue.

Interestingly a new book has been published that shreds an evolutionary fallacy, that is necessary to the theory. Uniquely Dawkins made a statement that people do not examine and shows the books position to be true.

Dawkins has said: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/bo...nted=all&_r=1&

"From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs -- every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous."

Dawkins calls the chapter on the dogs, in his own book: "The primrose path to macroevolution".

This is the definition of a primrose path:

"primrose path the pursuit of pleasure, especially when it is seen to bring disastrous consequences: "unaware of his doom, he continued down his primrose path." [with allusion to Shakespeare's Hamlet i. iii. 50][1] "A way of life of worldly ease or pleasure. A course of action that seems easy and appropriate but can actually end in calamity.
To be "led down the primrose path" is an idiom suggesting that one is being deceived or led astray, often by a hypocrite.


About the new book: The Dog Delusion - Evolution News & Views

The late William Safire of New York Times “About Language” fame once did a piece on the two ‘path’ metaphors that often get confused, specifically the primrose path and the garden path. Read here

The primrose path metaphor is used to refer to a life of pleasure, especially sexual dalliance. The garden path metaphor is the one relating to deceit leading to an unexpected and unpleasant end. Answers.com is wrong. In addition, as was pointed out in a subsequent Letter to the Editor, there is another meaning, the original one intended by Shakespeare. But that one is virtually unknown outside of England.

Hamlet Act 1, Scene 3

Laertes to his sister Ophelia warning her against Hamlet’s advances
Then weigh what loss your honor may sustain
If with too credent ear you list his songs,
Or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open
To his unmastered importunity.

Ophelia responding to her brother Laertes
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven
Whiles, like a puffed and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads

This appears to be the very first use of the phrase ‘primrose path’ so it did not come preloaded with any implications. We must determine the meaning Shakespeare intended from context. The primrose is a pretty and sweet smelling flower that grows in bunches along the verge of roads. A primrose path would not in itself suggest anything like sexual activity. Ophelia contrasts this with a “steep and thorny way”, that is, a difficult and unpleasant one. A primrose path would therefore be easy and pleasant.

The original meaning of ‘primrose path’ is therefore simply a way that is easy and pleasant. If one wishes to argue that a primrose path is always related to ‘dalliance’, then any ‘steep and difficult way’ must always be about sexual abstinence. As that letter pointed out, this original and simpler meaning is mostly restricted to England, land of Shakespeare.

Dawkins, who is English (Safire was American), merely said that hundreds of vastly dissimilar breeds of dogs appearing in a short time is an easy path to macroevolution.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Alt Thinker

The late William Safire of New York Times “About Language” fame once did a piece on the two ‘path’ metaphors that often get confused, specifically the primrose path and the garden path. Read here

The primrose path metaphor is used to refer to a life of pleasure, especially sexual dalliance. The garden path metaphor is the one relating to deceit leading to an unexpected and unpleasant end. Answers.com is wrong. In addition, as was pointed out in a subsequent Letter to the Editor, there is another meaning, the original one intended by Shakespeare. But that one is virtually unknown outside of England.

Hamlet Act 1, Scene 3

Laertes to his sister Ophelia warning her against Hamlet’s advances
Then weigh what loss your honor may sustain
If with too credent ear you list his songs,
Or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open
To his unmastered importunity.

Ophelia responding to her brother Laertes
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven
Whiles, like a puffed and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads

This appears to be the very first use of the phrase ‘primrose path’ so it did not come preloaded with any implications. We must determine the meaning Shakespeare intended from context. The primrose is a pretty and sweet smelling flower that grows in bunches along the verge of roads. A primrose path would not in itself suggest anything like sexual activity. Ophelia contrasts this with a “steep and thorny way”, that is, a difficult and unpleasant one. A primrose path would therefore be easy and pleasant.

The original meaning of ‘primrose path’ is therefore simply a way that is easy and pleasant. If one wishes to argue that a primrose path is always related to ‘dalliance’, then any ‘steep and difficult way’ must always be about sexual abstinence. As that letter pointed out, this original and simpler meaning is mostly restricted to England, land of Shakespeare.

Dawkins, who is English (Safire was American), merely said that hundreds of vastly dissimilar breeds of dogs appearing in a short time is an easy path to macroevolution.

Modern definition is likely what counts, not that of 1611, as Shakespearean English is not spoke today, though it may be hard to be sure.

However it does fit the reality of dog generation from mutation, not improvement or real evolution as claimed, so unfortunately it is a false path.

[Matthew 4:4]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Modern definition is likely what counts, not that of 1611, as Shakespearean English is not spoke today, though it may be hard to be sure.

Many years ago I heard that when Shakespeare was 46 years old that he translated [KJV ] Psalm 46.

If you count 46 words down in Psalm 46 [JKV] you comes to the word ' shake '
If you count 46 words up from the end of Psalm 46 [JKV ] you reach the word ' spear '

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Modern definition is likely what counts, not that of 1611, as Shakespearean English is not spoke today, though it may be hard to be sure.

However it does fit the reality of dog generation from mutation, not improvement or real evolution as claimed, so unfortunately it is a false path.

What do you think Dawkins intended to say when he used the phrase 'primrose path'?

Real evolution is not necessarily improvement, it is simply the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Environment forces and changes in those forces eliminate those genetic sets that fail to measure up. Another environmental change may wipe out the gene sets that worked well before. Significant genetic diversity in a gene pool is beneficial since it will help ensure the continuation of the population when things change.

That there is tremendous variety lurking in the gene pool of a population is shown by the huge number of dog breeds that exist. These did not arise from recent mutations but from ancient ones that have been carried along for the ride. The great majority of dog breeds are only a few centuries old and many of those under one century. It is selective breeding, a new kind of environmental pressure, that led to such diversity. But the genes that allowed such variation were not created by breeding. They were simply brought out into the open.

Although dogs are called a single species, interbreeding between say the largest Great Dane and the smallest Chihuahua is unlikely in itself and also unlikely to yield viable offspring. If the Great Dane and the Chihuahua were only discovered today by naturalists, they would be called different species. And all of the different breeds of dogs happened in only a few thousand years. Make it hundreds of millions of years instead and throw in some pretty intense environmental changes and you will get enormous diversity. Plus diversity within diversity as well because that has survival value when things turn bad for the currently commonest gene set.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Alt Thinker

What do you think Dawkins intended to say when he used the phrase 'primrose path'?

Real evolution is not necessarily improvement, it is simply the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Environment forces and changes in those forces eliminate those genetic sets that fail to measure up. Another environmental change may wipe out the gene sets that worked well before. Significant genetic diversity in a gene pool is beneficial since it will help ensure the continuation of the population when things change.

That there is tremendous variety lurking in the gene pool of a population is shown by the huge number of dog breeds that exist. These did not arise from recent mutations but from ancient ones that have been carried along for the ride. The great majority of dog breeds are only a few centuries old and many of those under one century. It is selective breeding, a new kind of environmental pressure, that led to such diversity. But the genes that allowed such variation were not created by breeding. They were simply brought out into the open.

Although dogs are called a single species, interbreeding between say the largest Great Dane and the smallest Chihuahua is unlikely in itself and also unlikely to yield viable offspring. If the Great Dane and the Chihuahua were only discovered today by naturalists, they would be called different species. And all of the different breeds of dogs happened in only a few thousand years. Make it hundreds of millions of years instead and throw in some pretty intense environmental changes and you will get enormous diversity. Plus diversity within diversity as well because that has survival value when things turn bad for the currently commonest gene set.

I agree to some extent, but genetic variation does not have anything to do with evolution. As the author of the book I referenced pointed out, all such mutations to date have caused degeneration, not improvement and . Dogs are still dogs. This fits scripture but not evolution.

In effect you agree that Dawkins got it wrong as what has occurred does not truly fit evolution at this point.

Plus no evidence of evolution exists as they came into existence quite suddenly with NO previous record of a fore-bearer. To complex to be accidental. Again this fits scripture which allows for such variations in "Kinds" which is a broader category than modern "species".

Originally Posted by expatCA

I agree to some extent, but genetic variation does not have anything to do with evolution. As the author of the book I referenced pointed out, all such mutations to date have caused degeneration, not improvement and . Dogs are still dogs. This fits scripture but not evolution.

In effect you agree that Dawkins got it wrong as what has occurred does not truly fit evolution at this point.

Plus no evidence of evolution exists as they came into existence quite suddenly with NO previous record of a fore-bearer. To complex to be accidental. Again this fits scripture which allows for such variations in "Kinds" which is a broader category than modern "species".

BS! You guys always post-hoc your explanations to fit the Bible. You guys will always adjust your general idea of what a 'kind' is because you guys never have and never will biologically define what a 'kind' is.

You just move the goal posts when science tells you what a species is since we have documented speciation now and shout - of course a kind is not a species - obviously - since that would contradict the bible.

Please tell me and explain to me where the biological demarcation line is between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is? Please tell me why macro-evolution is impossible biologically? What is it about this 'kind' category that makes it biologically incapable of crossing this barrier you have set up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5MXTBGcyNuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Dm277H3ot6Y

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Ceist

Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the fact of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that supports the ToE.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Creationism is religious mythology. There is no evidence supporting it.

Awww..come on... have some faith!

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by expatCA

I agree to some extent, but genetic variation does not have anything to do with evolution. As the author of the book I referenced pointed out, all such mutations to date have caused degeneration, not improvement and . Dogs are still dogs. This fits scripture but not evolution.

In effect you agree that Dawkins got it wrong as what has occurred does not truly fit evolution at this point.

Plus no evidence of evolution exists as they came into existence quite suddenly with NO previous record of a fore-bearer. To complex to be accidental. Again this fits scripture which allows for such variations in "Kinds" which is a broader category than modern "species".

Did you see Behe's response to Dawkins? Misotheist's misology: Richard Dawkins attacks Michael Behe - creation.com

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by expatCA

I agree to some extent, but genetic variation does not have anything to do with evolution. As the author of the book I referenced pointed out, all such mutations to date have caused degeneration, not improvement and . Dogs are still dogs. This fits scripture but not evolution.

In effect you agree that Dawkins got it wrong as what has occurred does not truly fit evolution at this point.

Plus no evidence of evolution exists as they came into existence quite suddenly with NO previous record of a fore-bearer. To complex to be accidental. Again this fits scripture which allows for such variations in "Kinds" which is a broader category than modern "species".

Are you are talking about Behe's The Edge of Evolution (what the Dawkins' article was about)?

Some problems with Behe…

Irreducible Complexity

This is the idea that it is impossible for an arch to exist, since it cannot stand up until the keystone is inserted, which is the last step. In the real world, arches are supported by a framework until the keystone is inserted. The framework is then no longer needed. It is removed because it is in the way, obstructing the space under the arch.

Eyes evolved gradually by steps. At each step anything that is no longer needed can go away. In fact it is often beneficial for it to go away. Creatures that live underground that have close aboveground cousins often no longer have eyes. If one does not need to see, the eye is a handicap. It is vulnerable to damage, subject to infection and is a pathway to the brain.

Speaking of eyes, we see precursors to eyes all over. There are microorganisms that are photosensitive. If light suddenly changes to shadow they dart in a random direction. The shadow might be a predator and a random direction is more likely to be away from a predator than toward it. Other microorganisms are differentially photosensitive on each side. This give them a better shot at going away from the predator. Some have indentations containing the photo-sensors. The difference in angles between the two sides gives even better info on which way to move. If they live in salt water – and that is by far most of the live-able volume of the earth – a transparent membrane in those depressions would help protect those delicate sensors from the salt, and also from physical damage. Thicken that membrane and fill it with water and it now a more flexible bumper, further protecting the sensors from damage. And guess what! We got a lens! Off and running on the way to real eyes. If the complete eye were designed from scratch, why do we see this progression? Or did God design each of those examples separately? If so, why?

BTW the photoreceptors in the human eye are in backwards, making gigantic numbers of them necessary. The octopus eye is very similar to the human eye except that the receptors are in the ‘right’ way. Does God love octopi more that he took more care in designing them?

Random Selection

Behe thinks that many simultaneous mutations are needed to make large changes. He does not understand(or just ignores) the power of cumulative selection.

Imagine ten little boxes in a row, each one able to hold a one digit number, in effect a ten digit number. On a random selection basis, how many tries would it take to get some particular number, say all sevens? It would take 10 billion random tries. That is random selection.

Now here is cumulative selection.

Select a box at random. If it does not now contain a 7, insert a random digit in the range 0 to 9. That is a mutation. If the box now contains a 7, leave it alone. 7 represents a gene with survival value. That is one step.

How many steps will it take to get the first 7? (Assume there are no 7s to begin with.) Since there are originally no 7s it does not matter which box gets picked. 1 step is enough. There are 10 possible values that can be inserted, so on average it will take 10 steps to get the first 7. (1 step times 10 possible values = 10)

How many steps will it take to get the second 7? There is now 1 7 so it will take 10/9 (= 1.11) steps to find a box without a 7. 1.11 steps times 10 possible values = 11.1 steps.

The number of tries for each subsequent 7 are:
#3: 10/8 = 1.25 x 10 = 12.5
#4: 10/7 = 1.43 x 10 = 14.3
#5: 10/6 = 1.67 x 10 = 16.7
#6: 10/5 = 2.00 x 10 = 20.0
#7: 10/4 = 2.50 x 10 = 25.0
#8: 10/3 = 3.33 x 10 = 33.3
#9: 10/2 = 5.00 x 10 = 50.0
#10: 10/1 = 10.00 x 10 = 100

10 + 11.1 + 12.5 + 14.3 + 16.7 + 20.0 + 25.0 + 33.3 + 50.0 +100 = 292.9

10 billion tries for random selection
293 tries for cumulative selection
Cumulative section is over 34 million times as efficient as random selection is this instance

Make it 20 boxes instead of just 10
100 billion billion steps for random selection
720 tries for cumulative selection
Efficiency: over 130 billion

30 boxes
1000 billion billion billion steps for random selection
1199 tries for cumulative selection
Efficiency: over 800 million billion billion

And this is assuming that ALL 7s are necessary. 9 out of 10 is not bad and takes quite a few fewer steps.
And it is also assuming that all 7s are necessary. There is a truly tremendous variety of successful DNA in the world. Maybe all 6s is another opportunity.

Things that are unthinkable for random selection are much easier for cumulative selection.

Malaria

Behe makes a big deal out of malaria versus human immunity. Immunity to malaria is related to a certain gene. If you do not have the gene you are subject to malaria. If you inherited the gene from one parent, you are immune to malaria, But if you inherited the gene from two parents you are even more subject to malaria than someone without the gene [b]and[b] you are also subject to sickle cell anemia. From an evolutionary standpoint, this is understandable. Survival is about being fit enough. If a mutation helps most of a population survive but does a number on some of them, that gene will survive. How does ID explain this? Is the Designer a sadist or just incompetent?

But Behe does not go that far. He believes in a common ancestor and in evolution within a species. (Too bad his prediction about protein binding sites turned out to be totally wrong, which he has admitted to.) He rejects Young Earth Creationism. So using Behe to support scripture is not going to work.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

BS! You guys always post-hoc your explanations to fit the Bible. You guys will always adjust your general idea of what a 'kind' is because you guys never have and never will biologically define what a 'kind' is.

You just move the goal posts when science tells you what a species is since we have documented speciation now and shout - of course a kind is not a species - obviously - since that would contradict the bible.

Please tell me and explain to me where the biological demarcation line is between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is? Please tell me why macro-evolution is impossible biologically? What is it about this 'kind' category that makes it biologically incapable of crossing this barrier you have set up?


10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube


11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

No we don't adjust it.

A Biblical kind is one in which reproduction between members of the kind can occur.

Dogs/canines can reproduce, Dogs and Cats can't.