Science And The Bible - Introduction

[lukec]

Yes, I suppose I should clarify that.

What I meant was that this idea that the oceans were where the ground was pushed down, and the continents were then left high and dry, does not correlate with geological evidence of continental drift, plate tectonics, and the like. The reason that the continents are higher than the oceans is that basically, the continental crust is of a lower density than the oceanic crust, and the mantle is a higher density than either. So, both of them "float" at different levels in the mantle. So, it is not that the water is "pushing down" on parts of the earth and forming mountains. Mountains are often formed when seismic plates interact and colide, or subduct. The ocean does not affect this, and the process is much too slow to be accounted for by a 40 day period.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The Genesis account uses the word kind, variations within a kind doesn't conflict with the Bible.

So you admit that "macro" Evolution does contradict the Bible? Note that macro evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community, and therefore constitutes it as science (possibly the most widely supported scientific view). I'd like to see how you can find the Biblical passage that supports macro Evolution.

This isn't meant as an attack on you but I think it's wrong to imply that the scientific community accepts "macro" evolution ... "macro" & "micro" evolution appear to be nothing more than creationist inventions and by accepting these as valid we play into their hands. I wrote this a year or so ago:

We see change/adaptation/"micro" evolution (whatever you want to call it) all around us, cats (to use a simplistic example) give birth to kittens, those kittens are similar to their parents but not exactly so, the kittens become cats and a pair of black cats is more likely to give rise to black kittens than otherwise. Johnny's Dad has the ability to curl his tongue, his mother does not. Johnny's Dad's parents were the same so (on the assumption, now understood to be true, that the tongue curling gene (TC) is dominant and that characteristics are determined by pairs of genes) we can hypothesise that Johnny's Dad carries at least one of the genes and that Johnny's mum carries only the recessive. If Johnny's Dad carries only one TC gene the chances (based on a simple truth table) are that 3 of 4 children will be able to curl their tongues ... and in this hypothetical instance this is true, Johnny has two brothers and a sister and his sister and one of his brothers are also able to curl their tongues. None of these changes are going to result in a new species because it is simple adaptation, or as creationists (and many popular science writers now, errantly IMO, refer to it, "micro" evolution), yes?

The evolutionist however sees it a little differently ... as far as they are concerned adaptation is evolution, a species adapts; and adapts some more; and adapts some more; and adapts some more until one day (over a very long period) it has adapted so far that suddenly (without any of that species actually realising it, assuming they were able to do so) they have evolved (in effect the differences become so noticeable, so fundamental that we, the observers, are able to define a new species! Adaptation has become evolution, "micro" evolution has become "macro" evolution ... and that is because "micro" evolution is exactly the same as "macro" evolution except that it has had a lot longer time to progress. Speciation/"macro" evolution is simply adaptation/"micro" evolution + time (lots and lots of time).

BUT, according to creationists evolution can't happen so the question becomes why ... if change on top of change on top of change on top of change (ad infinitum) does not equal a big change then why? What stops it? Something must do so! There must, if the creationists are right, be a mechanism

Hope fully you see what I am saying, why it is important we don't "buy into" this wingnut "micro"/"macro" evolution idea!

It's also worth noting something I brought up in that and that is that we, the observers, are able to define a new species ... fundies act as if species were something magical, something strange and weird and unique but the truth is they aren't ... we (science) defines what species are and whether or not a given animal's differences are sufficient to consider it a new species and we do that purely and simply to allow us to catalogue and identify them ... it is purely a classification system that enhances our ability to rationally study life systems.

For Daystar, a question:

My contention is that both "micro" & "macro" evolution are creationist inventions (the fact that you buy into this idea is yet another reason to support my contention that you are just another Fundy, admittedly old Earth but just a creationist stooge) whereas evolutionists (whether they accept the nomenclature or not) recognise that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing, adaptation; that if something adapts far enough it changes. Small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus small change (and so on over vast amounts of time) ultimately results in big change ... it isn't rocket science, given that adaptation happens it's a rational expectation that it will happen.

So the question changes and one has to ask, if creationists (if you) are right, what stops adaptation becoming evolution? What mechanism exists to prevent "micro" evolution becoming "macro"? Assume, if you will, that I am simple minded person; that I need to be told exactly why things happen ... correct me if I'm wrong but, if this simple concept is not true, then there must be something that prevents it so the question you have to answer is what is that mechanism? Can you enlighten me and tell me exactly what the difference is between "micro" & "macro" evolution (without resorting to tiresome clichés like "micro" equals adaption and "macro" equals speciation and what it is that forever stops one becoming the other? It's a simple enough question for ANY decent evolutionist to answer ... what is your answer? You imply there are limits to evolution ... what limits it?

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

Yes, I suppose I should clarify that.

What I meant was that this idea that the oceans were where the ground was pushed down, and the continents were then left high and dry, does not correlate with geological evidence of continental drift, plate tectonics, and the like. The reason that the continents are higher than the oceans is that basically, the continental crust is of a lower density than the oceanic crust, and the mantle is a higher density than either. So, both of them "float" at different levels in the mantle. So, it is not that the water is "pushing down" on parts of the earth and forming mountains. Mountains are often formed when seismic plates interact and colide, or subduct. The ocean does not affect this, and the process is much too slow to be accounted for by a 40 day period.

You introduce new arguments like higher and lower density but present no evidence for it. Furthermore it seems to me that in the model you present the density alone is not decisive but the total mass is. It's the total pressure on the mantle that's relevant (assumed that there's no upward trust from convection streams in the mantle), i.e. the thickness of the crust in combination with the density of the crust is critical. Furthermore a water column of 10 km does add considerable pressure to the mantle on top of the weight of the crust. You can't neglect it in your model.

[lukec]

You introduce new arguments like higher and lower density but present no evidence for it. Furthermore it seems to me that in the model you present the density alone is not decisive but the total mass is. It's the total pressure on the mantle that's relevant (assumed that there's no upward trust from convection streams in the mantle), i.e. the thickness of the crust in combination with the density of the crust is critical. Furthermore a water column of 10 km does add considerable pressure to the mantle on top of the weight of the crust. You can't neglect it in your model.

Sorry purple, you're right about the evidence of course. I've just learned that with Daystar there is little point in presenting any since he doesn't bother to read it.

Anyway, the water column does of course add something (and one would assume the column to be about 1/3 of the thickness of the oceanic crust, as water is about 1000 Kg per cubic meter), but that still does not mesh with the idea of very shallow oceans pushing down and causing new mountains to form. Further, this model of isostasy is not my model, it's just one that fits right now with seismic data.

Basically, http://geology10.com/files/lecture13/htm...file16.htm

More in depth, but taken from a research article database, so let me know if you can't access them.

One

Two

Any problems with these links, let me know, and I'll try to figure out some way to get them to you. I think they are on a secure server, so there may be issues.

[Daystar]

Some people say that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate and therefore unauthentic, not possibly the inspired word of the Creator, Jehovah God. I have addressed these accusations and demonstrated them to be misunderstandings.
1. Was the Earth created in 6 literal days? No.

2. Was the flood possible? Yes.

3. Does the Bible say that the earth is flat? No.

4. Does the Bible say that bats are birds? No.

5. Does the Bible say that insects have four legs? No.

6. Does the Bible say that Rabbits chew their cud? Refection.

You're talking an awful lot more about what it DOESN'T say than what it actually does says. So you're talking about whats not in the bible not whats in it? Its what IS in it that I have problems with. It claims God but there is no evidence of God. And there's a lot of evil in the bible.

I am talking about what critics of the Bible who know very little about it say it says.

Since you are criticising the Bible where do you get your facts from in doing so?

You will notice that I have said in the past that I don't think that science actually does conflict with the Bible. I am trying to demonstrate this but I can't even get any of you guys to tell me what a picture of some sculls are, you are so confident in your facts!

I don't need facts to criticize the bible. The burden of proof remember? If you don't have evidence I can just dismiss the bible. I don't need any facts to dismiss nonsensical claims about the universal.

If you are criticizing the Bible the burden of proof is on you. You can dismiss the Bible with or without evidence, obviously you know this, but if you publicly criticize it the burden is upon you. You fail in this.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you are criticizing the Bible the burden of proof is on you. You can dismiss the Bible with or without evidence, obviously you know this, but if you publicly criticize it the burden is upon you. You fail in this.

No, thats not how the burden of proof works. The has to be actual evidence of the truth of the bible before I have to disprove it. And if any believer, such as yourself, claims its truth then the burden is on you. The default position is non-truth until any evidence for truth is shown. IF the bible then really does show evidence of its truth (and it never has so far and I don't see how it could really), THEN the burden of proof moves to me. And the atheists. Until then the burden of proof is on you and the bible. The burden of proof is on the believer.
By your logic then that means you have to disprove the flying spaghetti monster rather than a believer in the FSM to have to prove it?
And that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the 'truth' of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Daystar]

I've heard this sort of statement before (obviously the figures are available in the bible), but ould it actually be possible to build something the size of the Titanic out of wood? I expect there would be a lot of stresses & strains that would make wood impractical.

No. The ark design was a very simple one, really just being a floating chest. This provided more stability and room than a ship like the Titantic of an equal size.

The Earth's *surface* is is around 70% water, the actual percentage of the Earth that is water is tiny.
As an aside, I had a quick search and someone has calculated that if the Earth was a perfectly smooth sphere it would be covered to the depth of 2.5km, so there is quite a lot of water around really. Although surely lots of mountains disappearing and seabeds rising would have been mentioned in the bible too.

There is a lot of water around, yes. I don't think that the Bible gets into mountains disappearing and seabeds rising. That was scientific speculation.

Hmmm......Flash floods may well produce sudden deaths, but isn't it supposed to have rained for 40 days & 40 nights? Not exactly a quick thing.

Where did the water come from? There was a canopy of water around the earth from creation until the flood.

To me, this is the weakest point of everything you have said. I'd say this is exactly how primitive man would have thought rain worked.
I'm sure one of them said "*Obviously* there must be loads of water around the Earth, where else does the rain come from?" (only not in English ).

Actually, they were familiar with the rain cycle as Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10 indicate. Besides, they knew that the canopy that is mentioned as being there until the flood and not afterwards had nothing to do with rain since it rained after the canopy was gone.

[Rob]

I've heard this sort of statement before (obviously the figures are available in the bible), but ould it actually be possible to build something the size of the Titanic out of wood? I expect there would be a lot of stresses & strains that would make wood impractical.

No. The ark design was a very simple one, really just being a floating chest. This provided more stability and room than a ship like the Titantic of an equal size.

You ought to tell someone about this, if the navy were to find out that garden sheds were sea worthy then they'd save millions.

[Tiberius]

There was a canopy of water around the earth from creation until the flood.

Could you please explain to me how this is anything other than pure speculation, and can you also link to bible passages that support this, as well as detailed scientific evidence for such a canopy existing, and how it could possibly exist in the first place.

You claim the Bible does not contradict science. Show me your science that supports this completely outrageous and ridiculous idea.

[Daystar]

I've heard this sort of statement before (obviously the figures are available in the bible), but ould it actually be possible to build something the size of the Titanic out of wood? I expect there would be a lot of stresses & strains that would make wood impractical.

No. The ark design was a very simple one, really just being a floating chest. This provided more stability and room than a ship like the Titantic of an equal size.

You ought to tell someone about this, if the navy were to find out that garden sheds were sea worthy then they'd save millions.

Fuck 'em.