The Bible's Scientific Credibility

[stitch626]

Sorry, badly worded. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll concede my points.

[Nickswitz]

No, we can't test them. But we can observe evidence for it. That's called logic.

Um... can't you say the same of everything that we see as creation, we can't test it, but we look at severely complex organisms, and you would conclude that something as complex as say, a human came along just by chance, do you think it's logical to assume that based on the fact that we have not evolved at all since the 1st century, so your saying that believing evolution makes sense, because of fossils of different species being similar, and our belief in creation is absurd because they are somewhat similar. Maybe God was smart and saw a bone structure that worked well, and made more with similar bone structure, doesn't that make sense, and as for DNA being similar, maybe DNA was the same, if it works, why drastically change it.

What has this got to do with the question I asked? The bible is asserting that the breeding population of every species alive was 2 or 7 animals per species. Is that or is that not a viable population?

Um... so are you saying that there couldn't have been only 2 humans around, because I mean look, there's a population of 7 billion people on the earth now. I believe it is a fine number for repopulating, they are doing it now in zoos, they have 5 or 6 animals, and then they breed them, and they get thousands out off them, or hey, breeding centers, that is exactly what they do, they take a pair of animals and allow them to breed freely. Maybe they bred faster back then, we don't know a whole lot about back then.

The rest I will concede. But as Mikey said, you won't make me athiest by saying that having faith in something unseen is stupid, so I have no problem arguing this to a point, after a while, I will concede.

[Mikey]

Do you want to believe that a global flood covered the Earth a few millennia ago? To do so as a matter of faith is no different whatever from believing that the Earth is flat as a matter of faith - by which I mean it can be done, but only in absolute defiance of the evidence.

Yes, this can be treated as an historical depiction of an event, especially if you are looking for a point around which to attack Scripture. However, it as easily possible that object lessons can and do exist.

And whether you like it or not, a great many religious people DO assert and believe that god does interfere in the natural world in measurable ways and that science confirms this. And I take issue with that.

In fact, I look at the marvelous complexity of the universe and the infinitesimal odds that would be in place if things were to come about as they are strictly on chance, and I take it as an affirmation of my belief in G-d. You know me well enough by now to know that I'd never ask you to do so.

If, however, you are referring to the more extreme view that the Bible can and should be used as the only reference to actual historical fact (fossils being planted, the Earth is 6000 years old, etc.) then I can only say that I am not one of those, and I can't comment on the assertion of that argument because I don't agree with it.

[Nickswitz]

If, however, you are referring to the more extreme view that the Bible can and should be used as the only reference to actual historical fact (fossils being planted, the Earth is 6000 years old, etc.) then I can only say that I am not one of those, and I can't comment on the assertion of that argument because I don't agree with it.

Nor am I, just so you know, I don't have a clue how old the earth is, and I believe fossils are just where they are, to believe fossils were planted is foolish.

[Sionnach Glic]

Um... can't you say the same of everything that we see as creation, we can't test it, but we look at severely complex organisms, and you would conclude that something as complex as say, a human came along just by chance,

Not this BS again. The evolution of the eye is incredibly easy to comprehend. It started off with groups of simple light-sensitive cells, enhancing over the eons to become sensitive to colour and gain depth perception. That's pretty much the eye in a nutshell.

do you think it's logical to assume that based on the fact that we have not evolved at all since the 1st century

That's just an outright lie. Look at a human skeleton from the first century. They're smaller than us and their bones are of a different composition. That there is the change we can expect over the course of just 2 millenia.
And on that note, it's rather foolish to try and use the last 2000 years as evidence that humans never evolved, when evolution takes many millenia for there to be noticable changes. Just what the hell do you think Neanderthalls were?

so your saying that believing evolution makes sense, because of fossils of different species being similar, and our belief in creation is absurd because they are somewhat similar.

Not only is that sentance ridiculously long, but it also makes no sense.
No, fossils of different species are not similar.

Maybe God was smart and saw a bone structure that worked well, and made more with similar bone structure, doesn't that make sense,

"Saw a bone structure"? What, he went on holiday and said "hey, that'd do great back on Earth"?
And bone structure varies wildly between species, so you're wrong yet again.

and as for DNA being similar, maybe DNA was the same, if it works, why drastically change it.

DNA is not similar between species. Jesus. Pick up a basic biology textbook.

Um... so are you saying that there couldn't have been only 2 humans around, because I mean look, there's a population of 7 billion people on the earth now.

What are you even saying here? There are seven billion people alive right now because there were more than 2 humans that we decended from. This is basic biology.

Look, let me make this simple for you. Take two people. Have them breed. They have 2 sons and 2 daughters.
Now have the sons and daughters breed with each other.
Now have those descendents breed.
Now have those descendents breed.
Now have those descendents breed.
Congratulations, the population has now been wiped out due to major genetic problems.

There's a reason incest was made illegal.

I believe it is a fine number for repopulating, they are doing it now in zoos, they have 5 or 6 animals, and then they breed them, and they get thousands out off them, or hey, breeding centers, that is exactly what they do, they take a pair of animals and allow them to breed freely.

And do these breeding pairs come from the same parents? Why no, no they don't. They come from different parents. Hell, just last year Dublin Zoo imported a couple of German females for our males to breed with, despite already having females here. Why did they do that? Because those females had the same parents as the males.

Maybe they bred faster back then, we don't know a whole lot about back then.

This isn't a case of not being able to breed fast enough, it's a case of there simply not being enough genetic diversity to survive.
They would all have died off due to inbreeding. This is a simple biological fact.

[stitch626]

Not this BS again. The evolution of the eye is incredibly easy to comprehend. It started off with groups of simple light-sensitive cells, enhancing over the eons to become sensitive to colour and gain depth perception. That's pretty much the eye in a nutshell.

So in your mind the plasma screen TV evolved from the CRT without a designer?

[Nickswitz]

Not this BS again. The evolution of the eye is incredibly easy to comprehend. It started off with groups of simple light-sensitive cells, enhancing over the eons to become sensitive to colour and gain depth perception. That's pretty much the eye in a nutshell.

I'm not gonna argue with that, I have no counter arguement.

That's just an outright lie. Look at a human skeleton from the first century. They're smaller than us and their bones are of a different composition. That there is the change we can expect over the course of just 2 millenia.
And on that note, it's rather foolish to try and use the last 2000 years as evidence that humans never evolved, when evolution takes many millenia for there to be noticable changes. Just what the hell do you think Neanderthalls were?

Hmm... a different species maybe.

Nickswitz wrote:
so your saying that believing evolution makes sense, because of fossils of different species being similar, and our belief in creation is absurd because they are somewhat similar.


Not only is that sentance ridiculously long, but it also makes no sense.
No, fossils of different species are not similar.

That's BS, different whales look similar, therefore their fossils would look similar, are you going to say all whales are the same species?

"Saw a bone structure"? What, he went on holiday and said "hey, that'd do great back on Earth"?
And bone structure varies wildly between species, so you're wrong yet again.

No, by saw I mean he looked at what he made. And they vary yes, however evolutionists say that apes and humans have similar bone structures, are you going to disagree with this?

DNA is not similar between species. Jesus. Pick up a basic biology textbook.

Right... evolutionists say that our DNA is close to an apes DNA, that's 2 different species, with similar DNA

What are you even saying here? There are seven billion people alive right now because there were more than 2 humans that we decended from. This is basic biology.

Look, let me make this simple for you. Take two people. Have them breed. They have 2 sons and 2 daughters.
Now have the sons and daughters breed with each other.
Now have those descendents breed.
Now have those descendents breed.
Now have those descendents breed.
Congratulations, the population has now been wiped out due to major genetic problems.

There's a reason incest was made illegal.

Ok, based on evolution, yes, it would be stupid, but based on creation, we were created perfect, so therefore as we got farther from perfection it would become easier for us to mutate, therefore why incest would be very bad now.

The other 2 points I concede to, animals were not created perfectly, so it wouldn't have worked, so I'm gonna concede that as I have no clue as to how that worked.

[Sionnach Glic]

So in your mind the plasma screen TV evolved from the CRT without a designer?

Obviously there was a designer involved because it was an artificial construct that cannot reproduce itself.

And that wasn't what I was refuting, anyway. Nick's argument was that the eye was too complex to have evolved naturaly. I pointed out that it's quite easy to understand how the eye evolved naturaly without the need for a creator.

I'm not gonna argue with that, I have no counter arguement.

Concession accepted.

Hmm... a different species maybe.

D'oh, you're right there. I meant Homo Erectus, Neanderthals were indeed a seperate species (or perhaps a sub-species, but the point's more or less the same).

In any case, my point was that if you look far back enough along human ancestry, you will see massive changes.

That's BS, different whales look similar, therefore their fossils would look similar, are you going to say all whales are the same species?

*sigh* Look at the skeletons of two seperate but related whale species. You'll notice they're different.
That's one of the reasons how we can tell from fossils that two organisms are from seperate species.

No, by saw I mean he looked at what he made. And they vary yes, however evolutionists say that apes and humans have similar bone structures, are you going to disagree with this?

Of course they have similar bone structures. We're descended from the same group of creatures.
And I was reffering more to looking at a bird's skeleton and a cat's, which are quite different from each other. If you take species that are related then obviously they're going to look similar.

Right... evolutionists say that our DNA is close to an apes DNA, that's 2 different species, with similar DNA

Hello? Close =/= similar.
And, yet again, it's because we're related. No shit we're going to have similar DNA. Your entire method of judging these things is dishonest to the extreme.
You want to prove that DNA is similar amongst all species? Then compare the DNA of a bird and the DNA of a cat. Let me know how similar those are.

Ok, based on evolution, yes, it would be stupid, but based on creation, we were created perfect, so therefore as we got farther from perfection it would become easier for us to mutate, therefore why incest would be very bad now.

So you're saying there was no such thing as inbreeding just a few thousand years ago?
This has nothing to do with "perfection" (and humans are far from perfection, I can tell you), this has to do with simple genetics. Now, unless you wish to claim that genetic mutation is something that just appeared within the last few thousand years (which is complete BS, since we can trace the lineage of species back far longer) then your entire point there is utterly irrelevant.

The other 2 points I concede to, animals were not created perfectly, so it wouldn't have worked, so I'm gonna concede that as I have no clue as to how that worked.

Well, if you agree there is no way it could have worked, then is it not logical to assume that it didn't happen?

[stitch626]

DNA is similar in all species, in that it is always made up of the same basic... the word is escaping me right now.
It is a helical molecule.

[Sionnach Glic]

It has the same basic structure.
So does a cat and a dog. That doesn't mean they're all that similar.

[stitch626]

Also you mentioned different species have different skeletons, while the same species would have very close skeletons.
Compare a Chiwoawoa (The tiny ratlike dog, if you cant understand my attrotious spelling) and a Saint Bernard.
Their skeletons are hugely different and they are the same species, while the Sai Whale (might be Sei) and Blue whale have nearly identical skeletons (other than size) and are different species.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yes? And?

Yes, there can be major differences within a species. That's called evolution. Eventualy those changes can become so major that the two creatures can no longer reproduce, leading to a seperate species being formed.
Similarly, it's possible for different species to have a similar body shape, due to how successful that shape may be in its environment.

[stitch626]

Never mind, the post I was reffering to disappeared.

[Sionnach Glic]

What? All the posts are still here.

[stitch626]

Seafort had posted after you, but when I posted his post was gone. He must have deleted it.