Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anrakyr said:
So already we know the bible is not historically accurate or at the least, the flood was local to a place.
Click to expand...
I’ll agree that the bible’s flood was almost certainly local. But as a historical text, I think anthropology would argue that the OT bible is pretty significant and does get quite a bit right.

Just credit where it’s due, that’s all.
 
His entire assumption is that all mutation is degenerative. He refuses to accept that there are even neutral mutations much less positive ones? Using our own cells decay and relating that to populations is in itself dishonest as our cells are programmed to only reproduce a certain number of times…varying on the type of cells. Neurons never reproduce thus we should stay mentally intelligent our whole life with no degradation as we age?

It seems this gentleman is a professor at Cornell U. He must have waited until he had tenure before writing this stuff! 😂. Does he have any peer reviewed papers on his degeneration only ideas? Otherwise, he’s just spouting opinions. Nothing to be taken seriously. Also, who agrees with him at the university level?

This is what happens when a person takes the Bible as a science book and has to align their “knowledge” with their beliefs. Most Christian scholars don’t do this, thankfully!
 

Scientific Proceedings Published, Challenging Conventional Neo-Darwinian Theory​

"This is by far the most rigorous and in-depth re-examination of the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian theory. Never have so many well-credentialed scientists, representing so many disciplines, united so effectively to look beyond the standard mutation-selection paradigm." - The Editors

WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – World Scientific Publishing has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011, where a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.

This is a milestone book. For over 100 years, it has been very widely believed that the mutation/selection process is sufficient to explain virtually everything within the biological realm. The 29 contributors to this volume bring into serious question this neo-Darwinian paradigm. They use their wide-ranging expertise to carefully examine a series of fundamental theoretical problems that are now emerging. These problems all relate to the exploding field of biological information . Biological information is becoming the primary focus of 21st century biological research. Within each cell there are information systems surpassing the best human information technologies. These systems create what is essentially a biological internet within each cell. The authors, although holding diverse philosophical perspectives, unanimously agree that the mutation/selection process is not adequate to explain the labyrinth of informational networks that are essential for life.

Several clear themes emerged from the research papers within this volume: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is; 2) Biological information is more than the molecular structures that embody it; 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life.

The book, Biological Information – New Perspectives , was edited by R. Marks, M. Behe, W. Dembski, B. Gordon, and J. Sanford. This volume presents 24 technical papers summarizing the research findings of 29 contributing scientists. The 24 technical papers are open access, and can be freely downloaded from http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818#t=toc . Additional information about the book is available at the same site. The book is available from World Scientific Publishing, Amazon.com, and FMSpub.org .

Who wants to start discussing the papers? Anyone?
 
Last edited:
The article makes no statement about other forms of degeneration, so your statement about neurons is a straw man of the actual topic. I assume you will admit that the vast, vast majority of mutations are degenerative? Even in this case the point of the article on genetic entropy is valid.
 
Pattylt said:
This is what happens when a person takes the Bible as a science book and has to align their “knowledge” with their beliefs. Most Christian scholars don’t do this, thankfully!
Click to expand...
You do not know Sanford’s history. When you find out I would appreciate a retraction.
 
For the person who fluffed off protein folding

The hope has always been that explaining evolutionary innovation at the level of single genes would eventually simplify the task of explaining innovation at the level of complete pathways. That reductionistic hope seems to be fading. Even at the level of single genes, explaining innovation is growing harder, not easier, as more and more distinct protein structures are discovered. The count of fundamentally distinct structures, or folds 1 as they are known, now stands at about 2,000, with more being added every year.
The extraordinary difficulty that neo-Darwinism encounters with single-gene innovations requiring a new protein fold has recently been described in detail [1].

That raises an obvious question. If the Darwinian mechanism cannot reliably explain innovation at the level of a single protein fold, what can it explain?

Where to go from here is a matter of perspective. Darwin’s theory certainly will not benefit from ignoring or denying the severity of the problems that have beset it. Once that is conceded, the most important question is whether the theory needs to be remedied or replaced. Among the things that will be needed to answer that question is a full picture of what has gone wrong with the standard evolutionary account. In other words, it will be increasingly helpful to go beyond a mere catalog of inexplicable facts to something more like a synthesis of the whole problem. We use the word ‘helpful’ here because a synthesis of this kind should, we think, be the start of something much more positive than the dismantling of an old theory.
It should instead be seen as an opportunity to gain key insights for constructing a new theory by building a clear understanding of how the old theory went wrong

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0022
 
Last edited:
NSmith said:
There has been no evidence that the (name removed by moderator)ut of solar energy results in a decrease of entropy, rather the energy from the sun contributes to a further increase in disorder.
Click to expand...
Sorry to butt in, I’ll be leaving right after this, but…

This one is particularly egregious. It’s called photosynthesis. The Sun forms the basis of almost every food chain on the planet. It’s the source of energy almost all living things use, directly or indirectly, to get energy in their own bodies and prevent death.
 
Yes, photosynthesis is an apt example of energy (name removed by moderator)ut decreasing local entropy as a result of already existing mechanisms which take advantage of the energy. I should have been more specific that the decrease I was referring to was in reference to the increasing complexity of biological life forms. To that end there has been no evidence that the sun is a positive actor. I appreciate the correction.
Edit: In fact most theories about early development of life on Earth are forced to sites such as the volcanic vents under the ocean in order to escape the harmful effects of the sun.
 
Last edited:
@buffalo, we’ve been around the block before on all your links and evidences. I’ve still never seen you clarify the micro/macro dividing line nor do I wish to continue arguing with your sources. You don’t accept the majority of evolutionary biologists and I don’t accept your small number of ID scientists.

I’ll end it here. If others want to play buffalos games, be my guest. He will continue to throw links at you that you must counter and warning…often the links are in favor of evolution and are only disputing a small subsection of research…and will then switch to another micro argument for you to research again to dispute. I think he keeps a handy list so he can go for weeks…and often does…with “problems” in evolution. He also tends to never answer your questions, insisting only on you answering his “first”. He also promises that change is coming in evolutionary theories…any minute now! I’m not sure how many years this has been stated! Good luck, all! I’m out!
 
buffalo said:
Yep, won’t discuss the actual papers.
Click to expand...
No, I won’t. Because I can’t. But - and here is the shocker! - neither can you.

Your knowledge of biology is so poor that you don’t even know the difference between a peer reviewed paper and published proceedings (the difference is fundamental).

You simply lack the ability, training, and education to understand the things to which you link or quote.

Patty is correct, you constantly move the goalposts to avoid having to answer anything. You’ve done it so many times in this thread I can no longer count (I’ve called you out on it three times!).
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Anrakyr:
As stated the flood if global should have destroyed ancient China and Egypt. Both of which magically repopulate and continue on like nothing happened.
Click to expand...
China and Egypt both recount the flood story. China has the flood story embedded in its language characters.
Click to expand...
Who was left to recount the story?
 
buffalo said:
Your post is the sound of a shattered paradigm hitting home. Rule #1 - when out of arguments always attack the poster.
Click to expand...
I have given you ample opportunity to explain your expertise. You shouldn’t fault me for assuming you don’t have any. It’s not like you’ve given me any reason to think otherwise.
 
billsherman said:
I have given you ample opportunity to explain your expertise. You shouldn’t fault me for assuming you don’t have any. It’s not like you’ve given me any reason to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
I will explain and debate the papers and research anytime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top