Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:57 am

ThatGuy wrote:I haven't returned to re-enter this debate, as I simply don't have time to answer/refute so many posts/questions from so many opponents. Clearly that would constitute a full-time job.

However, I think it is worth pointing you to Sandford's lecture on genetic entropy which contains plenty of citations.


If anyone has just over an hour to spare, and if you really are interested in investigating the truth regarding life's origins, take a look at the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk

That genomes are degenerating is not denied by the world's leading authorities in the field. It is observable and the implications are clear.

So:

- Life groups are not evolving upwards.

- The degeneration of genomes is consistent with the biblical account that nature has been in a state of decline since the original creation.

- Life groups cannot be billions of years old, or degeneration would have led to extinction by now.

- Therefore fossil bearing rock layers cannot be billions of years old.

- Therefore the rock layers themselves did not form in a uniformitarian manner, but are best accounted for by catastrophism.


I find it all the more poignant that at least one of you has indicated that they abandoned their faith out of a belief that Darwinism and not creation was the truth. The opposite is true.

Further reference: http://creation.com/genetic-entropy


Thanks again for the discussion.


Shrug. Big deal. One person changes his opinions and therefore all science is basically wrong. But, wait a minute, the creationists keep telling the courts, again and again, that creationism is purely a scientific position and has nothing to do with religion, noo siree Bob. So why is he pushing his religious position through CMI?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:24 pm

Ok, thanks, I'll try to have a look at the "genetic entropy" stuff - although creationists seem to have a muddled view of thermodynamic entropy, never mind genetic. Before I do, though, I must point out two flaws in your final argument:
- The degeneration of genomes is consistent with the biblical account that nature has been in a state of decline since the original creation.

- Life groups cannot be billions of years old, or degeneration would have led to extinction by now.

- Therefore fossil bearing rock layers cannot be billions of years old.
1) The degeneration of genomes is incorrect, since there are "life groups" vastly older than 6000 years.
2) Fossil bearing rock layers are billions of years old, so the continuing existence of species greater than 6,000 years old is not a problem.
Enjoy your weekend, snow permitting.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:33 pm

I find it all the more poignant that at least one of you has indicated that they abandoned their faith out of a belief that Darwinism and not creation was the truth. The opposite is true


Hardly:

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com ... reationism

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

By Glenn R. Morton

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true

I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:39 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
ThatGuy wrote:I haven't returned to re-enter this debate, as I simply don't have time to answer/refute so many posts/questions from so many opponents. Clearly that would constitute a full-time job.

However, I think it is worth pointing you to Sandford's lecture on genetic entropy which contains plenty of citations.


If anyone has just over an hour to spare, and if you really are interested in investigating the truth regarding life's origins, take a look at the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk

That genomes are degenerating is not denied by the world's leading authorities in the field. It is observable and the implications are clear.

So:

- Life groups are not evolving upwards.

- The degeneration of genomes is consistent with the biblical account that nature has been in a state of decline since the original creation.

- Life groups cannot be billions of years old, or degeneration would have led to extinction by now.

- Therefore fossil bearing rock layers cannot be billions of years old.

- Therefore the rock layers themselves did not form in a uniformitarian manner, but are best accounted for by catastrophism.


I find it all the more poignant that at least one of you has indicated that they abandoned their faith out of a belief that Darwinism and not creation was the truth. The opposite is true.

Further reference: http://creation.com/genetic-entropy


Thanks again for the discussion.


Shrug. Big deal. One person changes his opinions and therefore all science is basically wrong. But, wait a minute, the creationists keep telling the courts, again and again, that creationism is purely a scientific position and has nothing to do with religion, noo siree Bob. So why is he pushing his religious position through CMI?



He's a plant geneticist. Hardly an expert on the human genome.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Steve660 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:44 pm

That genomes are degenerating is not denied by the world's leading authorities in the field. It is observable and the implications are clear.


Well this professor obviously denies it:
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=sanford

If genomes were indeed degenerating at the rate suggested, then fast reproducing organisms like mice and bluebottles should have fallen apart long ago.
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:56 pm

Steve660 wrote:If genomes were indeed degenerating at the rate suggested, then fast reproducing organisms like mice and bluebottles should have fallen apart long ago.
That's not his only problem. He attributes human death to the accumulation of errors and says that it's impossible to prolong human life much beyond what it is today. Which presents a bit of a problem for those long-lived individuals in the biblical genealogies. And it's not as if it's a recent thing - he attributes the degeneration to the Fall, so even Adam wouldn't have lived much beyond his four score and ten - especially as lions and dinosaurs would have turned carnivorous at the same time.
Sanford also puts the loss of fitness of humans at a minimum of 1% per generation - though he thinks it could be as much as 10%, losing 50% in six generations. Which need be only around 120 years. Taking a 6000 year old species with a generation period of 25years, 1% would give a degeneration of around 91%. There must, indeed, have been giants in those days! (Had it been ThatGuy's 3%, we would of course long ago have fallen apart like the bluebottles.)
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:31 pm

http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, on the other hand, is simply wrong from beginning to end. It misrepresents everything it touches: beneficial and deleterious mutations, gene duplication, natural selection, and synergistic epistasis. In all these areas, Sanford avoids engaging the large body of work which directly refutes his viewpoint, and instead cherry-picks a few references that seem to point his way, usually misinterpreting them in the process
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby jon_12091 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:40 pm

ThatGuy wrote:I find it all the more poignant that at least one of you has indicated that they abandoned their faith out of a belief that Darwinism and not creation was the truth. The opposite is true.

*shakes head* Just one creationist does more damage to church than Dawkin's (and all his pointy-hatted Darwinist minions) could ever dream of doing.

Well no citations on the out of context angiosperm pollen so I'm guessing that ThatGuy was lying.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Steve660 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:48 pm

I have just finished reading the reference provided by ThatGuy purporting to prove that our genomes are degrading:

pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

The author of this piece concedes, “There is very little information about the human genomic mutation rate.” So he turns to comparison with Drosophila. Studies of which indicate that “the average fly carries about one new mutant gene with a minor deleterious effect, and perhaps more”. By “minor deleterious effect” he means “viability reduction of 2–3%”. Far from being universally accepted the data “have been reanalyzed and subjected to the waves of higher criticism”. So, although the author disagrees with the criticism, the fact that it has been criticized shows that it is NOT as generally accepted as ThatGuy claims.
The author then extrapolates to humans on the basis that, “Mutation rates per generation for individual loci are roughly comparable in man and Drosophila”. As humans have a larger genome this means they will have more mutations, and he says estimates range from tens to a 100 or more. “But how many of these are in nonactive DNA regions and presumably neutral is unknown.” He then ASSUMES the more pessimistic scenario, with mutation rates being as high as the Drosophila data he cites suggest.
He continues, “This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.” But then says, “There is a way out, however.” And goes on to explain how natural selection can pick off several deleterious mutations at a time, and that this is made possible by sexual reproduction. He then goes on to explain how this works by “truncation selection” in which individuals with more than a certain number of mutations are eliminated. He then discusses the more realistic scenario of “quasi-truncation selection” in which the probability of elimination increases with the number of deleterious mutations, and shows this to be almost as effective. With some simple sums he concludes that this would be adequate to “balance one new deleterious mutation per generation” (in flies). Extending this to humans he says, “this form of selection seems to me to be the most likely mechanism by which the population could survive and prosper, despite a high mutation rate”. The author’s final section points out that, at least in the wealthy nations, better conditions and lower infant mortality mean less selection, so deleterious mutations may now be accumulating, but we have many generations to go before it becomes an issue. In short, if our genomes are degrading it is only in very recent times in wealthy societies where selection is much reduced. For most of human history quasi-truncation selection kept the degradation in check.
So we see ThatGuy’s argument answered by the very reference he cites!
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:35 pm

Steve660 wrote:I have just finished reading the reference provided by ThatGuy purporting to prove that our genomes are degrading:

pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

The author of this piece concedes, “There is very little information about the human genomic mutation rate.” So he turns to comparison with Drosophila. Studies of which indicate that “the average fly carries about one new mutant gene with a minor deleterious effect, and perhaps more”. By “minor deleterious effect” he means “viability reduction of 2–3%”. Far from being universally accepted the data “have been reanalyzed and subjected to the waves of higher criticism”. So, although the author disagrees with the criticism, the fact that it has been criticized shows that it is NOT as generally accepted as ThatGuy claims.
The author then extrapolates to humans on the basis that, “Mutation rates per generation for individual loci are roughly comparable in man and Drosophila”. As humans have a larger genome this means they will have more mutations, and he says estimates range from tens to a 100 or more. “But how many of these are in nonactive DNA regions and presumably neutral is unknown.” He then ASSUMES the more pessimistic scenario, with mutation rates being as high as the Drosophila data he cites suggest.
He continues, “This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.” But then says, “There is a way out, however.” And goes on to explain how natural selection can pick off several deleterious mutations at a time, and that this is made possible by sexual reproduction. He then goes on to explain how this works by “truncation selection” in which individuals with more than a certain number of mutations are eliminated. He then discusses the more realistic scenario of “quasi-truncation selection” in which the probability of elimination increases with the number of deleterious mutations, and shows this to be almost as effective. With some simple sums he concludes that this would be adequate to “balance one new deleterious mutation per generation” (in flies). Extending this to humans he says, “this form of selection seems to me to be the most likely mechanism by which the population could survive and prosper, despite a high mutation rate”. The author’s final section points out that, at least in the wealthy nations, better conditions and lower infant mortality mean less selection, so deleterious mutations may now be accumulating, but we have many generations to go before it becomes an issue. In short, if our genomes are degrading it is only in very recent times in wealthy societies where selection is much reduced. For most of human history quasi-truncation selection kept the degradation in check.
So we see ThatGuy’s argument answered by the very reference he cites!


So ThatGuy just bullshited he way through they whole idiotic nonsense he was claiming. Doesn't surprise me.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:34 am

ThatGuy wrote:I haven't returned to re-enter this debate, as I simply don't have time to answer/refute so many posts/questions from so many opponents. Clearly that would constitute a full-time job.

However, I think it is worth pointing you to Sandford's lecture on genetic entropy which contains plenty of citations.


If anyone has just over an hour to spare, and if you really are interested in investigating the truth regarding life's origins, take a look at the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk

That genomes are degenerating is not denied by the world's leading authorities in the field. It is observable and the implications are clear.

So:

- Life groups are not evolving upwards.

- The degeneration of genomes is consistent with the biblical account that nature has been in a state of decline since the original creation.

- Life groups cannot be billions of years old, or degeneration would have led to extinction by now.

- Therefore fossil bearing rock layers cannot be billions of years old.

- Therefore the rock layers themselves did not form in a uniformitarian manner, but are best accounted for by catastrophism.


I find it all the more poignant that at least one of you has indicated that they abandoned their faith out of a belief that Darwinism and not creation was the truth. The opposite is true.

Further reference: http://creation.com/genetic-entropy


Thanks again for the discussion.



I suspect that a LOT of YECs monitor this website. It's funny how they don't take the time to come on here and demonstrate how we are wrong about science as they believe is the case. Surely they cannot all be 'too busy'? That Guy showed more courage/tenacity than most of them. But he leaves with a lot of posts, including mine about eg Hawaii, NOT addressed much less refuted.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:39 am

"is consistent with the biblical account that nature has been in a state of decline since the original creation".

Suggesting that the Bible points to entropy is a bit of a stretch (certainly genetic entropy, if such is a real phenomenon)!

It merely refers to problems in childbirth, problems with growing crops, and problems with crawling on your belly like a snake (in the Curse). Plus one or two references to creation 'groaning' and also a 'new' heaven and Earth being on the way (after Judgment). Nothing in any detail about the fate of the universe.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:49 am

ThatGuy wrote:I haven't returned to re-enter this debate, as I simply don't have time to answer/refute so many posts/questions from so many opponents. Clearly that would constitute a full-time job.

However, I think it is worth pointing you to Sandford's lecture on genetic entropy which contains plenty of citations.


If anyone has just over an hour to spare, and if you really are interested in investigating the truth regarding life's origins, take a look at the YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk

That genomes are degenerating is not denied by the world's leading authorities in the field. It is observable and the implications are clear.

So:

- Life groups are not evolving upwards.

- The degeneration of genomes is consistent with the biblical account that nature has been in a state of decline since the original creation.

- Life groups cannot be billions of years old, or degeneration would have led to extinction by now.

- Therefore fossil bearing rock layers cannot be billions of years old.

- Therefore the rock layers themselves did not form in a uniformitarian manner, but are best accounted for by catastrophism.


I find it all the more poignant that at least one of you has indicated that they abandoned their faith out of a belief that Darwinism and not creation was the truth. The opposite is true.

Further reference: http://creation.com/genetic-entropy


Thanks again for the discussion.



I was recently sent this link by Christine Janis:
http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:53 am

Peter Henderson wrote:http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, on the other hand, is simply wrong from beginning to end. It misrepresents everything it touches: beneficial and deleterious mutations, gene duplication, natural selection, and synergistic epistasis. In all these areas, Sanford avoids engaging the large body of work which directly refutes his viewpoint, and instead cherry-picks a few references that seem to point his way, usually misinterpreting them in the process


Sanford wrote a claimed rebuttal to that which I recently brought to Scott's attention.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:15 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Sanford wrote a claimed rebuttal to that which I recently brought to Scott's attention.
Scott links to his reply to Sandford's rebuttal at the bottom (above references) of the article linked to by Peter.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests

cron