The Definition of Real Science

[EarlyActs]

This has nothing to do with gradualists. *You* made a claim about how frequent fossils are, and I'm questioning how you could make that claim without taking into account the rate at which fossils are made.


Fine, for the sake of argument, let's accept your cataclysm event: what is the rate at which fossils are made (number of fossils divided by number of organisms)? Without that number, your argument makes no sense. Even if it is an estimate (which it has to be anyway).


How do you know that they were all died and fossilized at the same time?

How can you set a rate when the hydrological power of the event is such a spike? You'd have one rate for the calm, and one for the event. And yet, everything I've read says you have to have instant burial to create fossils.

Steno realized, logically, that a mass burial could be part of the cataclysm, and would have to be after the luxuriant growth of the original thriving of creation. IOW, he didn't find a sparse burial, and knew why.

 

[EarlyActs]

Your European friend doesn't speak for evolution. Try looking at reputable sources produced by actual biologists with *their* sources cited.


Evolution is not about the origin of all life, it's about how life, once there, changed.


You have still, again, not provided any evidence for that claim.


I have no idea what developmentalism has to do with evolution.

re developmentalism
Lewis was answering questions from Oxford students in the 1940s. 'Developmentalism' was an alternate name for evolution; that things developed slowly over vast amounts of time, countering the scene observed in Genesis.

 

[Gus Bovona]

How can you set a rate when the hydrological power of the event is such a spike? You'd have one rate for the calm, and one for the event.

Fine. What are those two rates?

And yet, everything I've read says you have to have instant burial to create fossils.

Steno realized, logically, that a mass burial could be part of the cataclysm, and would have to be after the luxuriant growth of the original thriving of creation. IOW, he didn't find a sparse burial, and knew why.

 

[Gus Bovona]

re developmentalism
Lewis was answering questions from Oxford students in the 1940s. 'Developmentalism' was an alternate name for evolution; that things developed slowly over vast amounts of time, countering the scene observed in Genesis.

Evolution today has advanced a lot since the 1940s. Evolution can accommodate gradual and more rapid change.

 

[EarlyActs]

GusB:
You have still, again, not provided any evidence for that claim.

If the Cambrian is not in a scheme of Ms or Bs of years, but rather in a compact narrative such as Steno was working, it is the evidence.

Let's say there was a car wreck and a tool box from the pickup ended up in the back seat of the SUV. But the pickup was a repairman's car and it was marked with signs etc. Why would we discuss a toolbox being the SUV owner's property in the wreck? That's what I hear from you when you keep repeating that there isn't any evidence. That's what Lewis meant about the trick. Or about the other non-mathematical things that could happen to creation. And he wasn't even aware of the cataclysm geology of Whitcomb and Morris (1960s). He was just referring to the adult bird and the egg.

It is almost something you are seeing when you say 'evolution is not about origins but about ongoing processes.' But if the origins were entirely different than egg development, if adult reproducing birds were created like Jesus creating a fishing miracle, Luke 5:4-9, and if there was a rational account handed down through time about a Creator, and in that account, the biosphere is teeming with life from the first week, and the account had exact dimensions for a ship that protected a sample of life for a year of intense hydrologic and geologic activity, then...

Have you simply been speaking of micro-evolution all along?

The Euro friend made definite connections; he even quoted Lyell: the present processes are the key to the past. Therefore Genesis was ancient goat-shepherd drug-induced fantasy.

 

[EarlyActs]

The Noah--pangea doc mentions mega-sequences which is pretty much a standard handles for the cataclysm event.

 

[EarlyActs]

Evolution today has advanced a lot since the 1940s. Evolution can accommodate gradual and more rapid change.

When it gets to a week's duration, we'll have something to talk about!

You see, the expression 'after their kind' is very important in a way past just the genus-phylae sense. By ch 6, there are mysterious entities who are interfering, cross-breeding, inseminating and because of this the ancient world was buried. Call it genetic engineering.

My point is not simply that Genesis has a theme of 'after their kind' as a tidy feature to its story; but that evil people sabotaged this feature, pretending to be gods. This means that the 'after their kind' prohibits such experimentations, and that it would not occur in nature as created by God. Thus I have serious doubt even about micro-evolution amounting to very much, let alone resulting in new species or stronger arms or other devices from 'evolve-thinking-into-existence' in order to dominate others.

I asked my Euro friend, since animals are so much stronger and faster on 4 legs, why would humans even appear after them? Why even try to be up on 2 legs? He simply said 'I have no idea.'

 

[EarlyActs]

The Noah--pangea doc mentions mega-sequences which is pretty much a standard handle for the cataclysm event.

This is the short version of the 23 min explanation

 

[Gus Bovona]

GusB:
You have still, again, not provided any evidence for that claim.

If the Cambrian is not in a scheme of Ms or Bs of years, but rather in a compact narrative such as Steno was working, it is the evidence.

What does the Cambrian have to do with claim of yours I was referring to:

I mean that all systems in all creatures and the realms/spheres themselves were designed to work from the first. That is what Gen 1 is saying. Notice the Hebrew expression for the 'filling' of each realm with creatures, 'let them swarm with swarms'.

My emphasis.

Let's say there was a car wreck and a tool box from the pickup ended up in the back seat of the SUV. But the pickup was a repairman's car and it was marked with signs etc. Why would we discuss a toolbox being the SUV owner's property in the wreck? That's what I hear from you when you keep repeating that there isn't any evidence. That's what Lewis meant about the trick. Or about the other non-mathematical things that could happen to creation. And he wasn't even aware of the cataclysm geology of Whitcomb and Morris (1960s). He was just referring to the adult bird and the egg.

I honestly don't know how to understand your analogy between the cars and the toolbox with evolution. Can you make your analogy explicit? In evolution, what is the toolbox, and what is the pickup, and what is the SUV?

But, more importantly, I haven't said there is no evidence, I've only said that *you* have not presented any, here, in this thread, in conversation with me.

It is almost something you are seeing when you say 'evolution is not about origins but about ongoing processes.' But if the origins were entirely different than egg development, if adult reproducing birds were created like Jesus creating a fishing miracle, Luke 5:4-9, and if there was a rational account handed down through time about a Creator, and in that account, the biosphere is teeming with life from the first week, and the account had exact dimensions for a ship that protected a sample of life for a year of intense hydrologic and geologic activity, then...

Are you saying that evolution is not true because of all the things in your "if" clauses above?

Have you simply been speaking of micro-evolution all along?

No, not at all.

The Euro friend made definite connections; he even quoted Lyell: the present processes are the key to the past. Therefore Genesis was ancient goat-shepherd drug-induced fantasy.

I'm not going to defend or critique what your Euro friend has said. Can you just stay focused on what I'm saying, because it's me you're in conversation with?

 

[Gus Bovona]

When it gets to a week's duration, we'll have something to talk about!

You see, the expression 'after their kind' is very important in a way past just the genus-phylae sense. By ch 6, there are mysterious entities who are interfering, cross-breeding, inseminating and because of this the ancient world was buried. Call it genetic engineering.

My point is not simply that Genesis has a theme of 'after their kind' as a tidy feature to its story; but that evil people sabotaged this feature, pretending to be gods. This means that the 'after their kind' prohibits such experimentations, and that it would not occur in nature as created by God. Thus I have serious doubt even about micro-evolution amounting to very much, let alone resulting in new species or stronger arms or other devices from 'evolve-thinking-into-existence' in order to dominate others.

I asked my Euro friend, since animals are so much stronger and faster on 4 legs, why would humans even appear after them? Why even try to be up on 2 legs? He simply said 'I have no idea.'

Can you give me a strict and precise account of what you mean by "micro-evolution"? I just want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you give me a strict and precise account of what you mean by "micro-evolution"? I just want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.

It would be about limited adaptions, not including new species or creatures or even additional limbs etc..

Macro is about origins in materials I've read.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It would be about limited adaptions, not including new species or creatures or even additional limbs etc..

Macro is about origins in materials I've read.

Would you say it's genetic mutations and natural selection that produce these limited adaptations?

 

[ChristB4us]

There's no conflict between those two statements. Using common sense to tell you that it's rained overnight is an example of when we know common sense works. But common sense doesn't work all the time.


You have not demonstrated the science in evolution is faulty, you're merely claiming that it is.

The problem, though, is that, in order to show how evolution is wrong, you'd have to somehow counter the massive amounts of evidence of evolution. That's not impossible, but doing so would be an enormous job merely because the amount of evidence for evolution is so massive.

Do you agree that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55.000 years?

If so, how can they prove that assumption? I see no realistic way that they can.

And yet the Bible testify to the global flood.

An ancient Chinese pictograph for boat is made up of 3 smaller pictographs of eight, mouths, & vessel.

Only 8 survivors of the Biblical global flood and we have evidence to that Chinese ancient pictograph for boat.

From that evidence, we see suburban legends of the global flood in cultures as spread out all over the world. as descendent from those 8 survivors would tell the account as each generation would wind up with variations as time goes by where it would be containing similarities to give credence even though there are difference due to the telling from generations to generations.

Only God the Father can draw you unto the Son to believe in Him to be saved as only He can reveal His Son to you, the Truth so you can believe in Him to be saved.

You have been lied to in that false science and it will take a miracle from the Lord to have you see this false science that can never be proven as it only exists in the realm of the man's imaginations as they hide the reality of the God's judgment on the earth so that you would not seek Him because He is coming to judge the earth again by fire as a fiery calamity will destroy a third of the earth ( the western hemisphere ) right after the pre great tribulation rapture event.

So at the rapture event when all eyes shall see Him and the angel spreads the everlasting gospel everywhere before that fiery calamity comes, just know that you are free to come to Him & believe in Him to be saved before you die. Or if you happen to be in an accident and dying for whatever the reason, do feel free to pray to Jesus Christ to save you and you shall be in Heaven.

As it is, you cannot see the truth as you cannot hold that false science to that definition of real science at all that it has to be observed and proven and thus not assumed.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Do you agree that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55.000 years?

If so, how can they prove that assumption? I see no realistic way that they can.

How do you define global calamity, and how would it affect radiometric dating?

And yet the Bible testify to the global flood.

This starts a second line of challenge to radiometric dating. The first one is the one about a global calamity, see above. Let's try to resolve that one before moving on to the Bible as a piece of evidence against radiometric dating.

An ancient Chinese pictograph for boat is made up of 3 smaller pictographs of eight, mouths, & vessel.

Only 8 survivors of the Biblical global flood and we have evidence to that Chinese ancient pictograph for boat.

How do we decide whether the character for boat in Chinese refers to Noah's ark or whether it refers to something else?

From that evidence, we see suburban legends of the global flood in cultures as spread out all over the world. as descendent from those 8 survivors would tell the account as each generation would wind up with variations as time goes by where it would be containing similarities to give credence even though there are difference due to the telling from generations to generations.

Only God the Father can draw you unto the Son to believe in Him to be saved as only He can reveal His Son to you, the Truth so you can believe in Him to be saved.

You have been lied to in that false science and it will take a miracle from the Lord to have you see this false science that can never be proven as it only exists in the realm of the man's imaginations as they hide the reality of the God's judgment on the earth so that you would not seek Him because He is coming to judge the earth again by fire as a fiery calamity will destroy a third of the earth ( the western hemisphere ) right after the pre great tribulation rapture event.

So at the rapture event when all eyes shall see Him and the angel spreads the everlasting gospel everywhere before that fiery calamity comes, just know that you are free to come to Him & believe in Him to be saved before you die. Or if you happen to be in an accident and dying for whatever the reason, do feel free to pray to Jesus Christ to save you and you shall be in Heaven.

As it is, you cannot see the truth as you cannot hold that false science to that definition of real science at all that it has to be observed and proven and thus not assumed.

 

[ChristB4us]

How do you define global calamity, and how would it affect radiometric dating?

When we believe the Bible is true and that a global flood had occurred, then science assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years for them to get accurate radiometric dating results just went out the window, now doesn't it?

This starts a second line of challenge to radiometric dating. The first one is the one about a global calamity, see above. Let's try to resolve that one before moving on to the Bible as a piece of evidence against radiometric dating.

When the Bible testify to the fountains of the deep rising up; as the earth was being watered by a mist hence imagine a mountain range spouting like Old Faithful at Yellowstone; then what would cause that and for rain to happen for the first time ? Asteroids hitting the moon and the earth.

The moon started moving away from the earth as which we can assume the asteroids hitting that moon, caused it for which gravitational forces would cause the mist that was watering the whole earth to rise up to condense into cloud and rain for the first time on earth.

Then the asteroid impacts on earth would force the fountains of the deep to rise up hence no longer spraying like a mist but gushing out.

Then that one land mass where all the water was in one place, the "Pacific Basin", would also created tsunamis.

Then by believing all those asteroid impact happened at the time of the Biblical Flood, all that debris and deluge and weather in turmoil, geographic upheaval... how can anyone get an accurate radiometric dating result out of all of that?

How do we decide whether the character for boat in Chinese refers to Noah's ark or whether it refers to something else?

I do not see a coincidence whereas you would only because you believe man's ever changing word in hat false science rather than God's words in the Bible.

So ask God to reveal the truth for you to see in what real science is and how His words are true in the KJV Bible.

 

[Gus Bovona]

When we believe the Bible is true and that a global flood had occurred, then science assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years for them to get accurate radiometric dating results just went out the window, now doesn't it?

Why would a global flood make radiometric dating inaccurate?

When the Bible testify to the fountains of the deep rising up; as the earth was being watered by a mist hence imagine a mountain range spouting like Old Faithful at Yellowstone; then what would cause that and for rain to happen for the first time ? Asteroids hitting the moon and the earth.

The moon started moving away from the earth as which we can assume the asteroids hitting that moon, caused it for which gravitational forces would cause the mist that was watering the whole earth to rise up to condense into cloud and rain for the first time on earth.

Then the asteroid impacts on earth would force the fountains of the deep to rise up hence no longer spraying like a mist but gushing out.

Then that one land mass where all the water was in one place, the "Pacific Basin", would also created tsunamis.

Then by believing all those asteroid impact happened at the time of the Biblical Flood, all that debris and deluge and weather in turmoil, geographic upheaval... how can anyone get an accurate radiometric dating result out of all of that?

Why would all that stuff prevent accurate radiometric dating?

I do not see a coincidence whereas you would only because you believe man's ever changing word in hat false science rather than God's words in the Bible.

So ask God to reveal the truth for you to see in what real science is and how His words are true in the KJV Bible.

 

[ChristB4us]

Why would a global flood make radiometric dating inaccurate?

The same reason why science says that radiometric dating are accurate based on the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55000 years.

Why would all that stuff prevent accurate radiometric dating?

Imagine a crime scene and a flash flood washed into the place and messed everything up. Still think you can get an accurate reading on the time of death? That is only dealing with recent event rather than determining something that had happened in the past with no witnesses to the extenuating circumstances involving the crime scene.

Like believing there was no flash flood and so they pursue their investigation on that faulty assumption.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The same reason why science says that radiometric dating are accurate based on the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55000 years.

This is not an answer to my question. It's a reply to my post, but it's not an answer to the question.

Imagine a crime scene and a flash flood washed into the place and messed everything up. Still think you can get an accurate reading on the time of death?

The only thing I can imagine from this comment is that **moving things around a lot** is what you think will prevent accurate radiometric dating, but that's silly if you know anything about radiometric dating. Is it something else? What is there about radiometric dating such that a flood - even one in which lots of things get moved around a lot - will prevent an accurate reading?

That is only dealing with recent event rather than determining something that had happened in the past with no witnesses to the extenuating circumstances involving the crime scene.

Like believing there was no flash flood and so they pursue their investigation on that faulty assumption.

 

[ChristB4us]

This is not an answer to my question. It's a reply to my post, but it's not an answer to the question.


The only thing I can imagine from this comment is that **moving things around a lot** is what you think will prevent accurate radiometric dating, but that's silly if you know anything about radiometric dating. Is it something else? What is there about radiometric dating such that a flood - even one in which lots of things get moved around a lot - will prevent an accurate reading?

Failing to see what can cause a catastrophic global flood and how it can mess with radiometric dating results is why I cannot help you at all.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Failing to see what can cause a catastrophic global flood and how it can mess with radiometric dating results is why I cannot help you at all.

You haven't shown me anything to see. You can't state why the flood messing things up would change the accuracy of radiometric dating.