How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[Tcg]

And yet genetic and biology professors from the following universities and more would agree with me.

Liberty University
Maranatha University
Cedarville University (Go Bees)
Bob Jones University
Clarks Summit University
Biola University
Creation College

Well gee, whoda thunk that bunch'd reject evolutionary theory?

I was familiar with most of these, but "Creation College" stood out as kinda odd. Can't find it no matter where I look. I've been to Bob Jones before, for a wedding. So I know it's real. The Bride and Groom weren't allowed to kiss in the chapel they were married in. You know where that'd lead if people were allowed to kiss, married or not. You start having kids and sure enough their gonna be different than their parents. It's enough to cause one to suspect evolution is a real thing. Nope, can't have that.


Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #0]

I asked for a mechanism that would better explain not only the animals we see now on earth but also in the fossil record. Creationism is not a mechanism to explain such. Creationism is just a varying claim made by religious followers, not a mechanism to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. (We'll get to see this below).

Creationism does explain both the diversity in a realistic time frame (unlike that of evolution) and the fossil record which indicates that all fossils were fossilized in a water environment. The Bible classifies all animals in terms of locomotion, plant life, animals that swim, animals that fly, insects, land animals, and man as a special creation. That is the totality of life on Earth.

This even explains the fossil record. The animals that live on the ocean floor are in the deepest layers the animals that swim are next, and land animals are next as a basic trend. That is exactly what would happen in a flood the sediment would cover the ocean floor 1st then the sea creatures would get caught up and the sediment and become fossilized and then land creatures would get caught up in sediment.

To acknowledge such claims would be to give it credit that it doesn't deserve. I was hoping you would describe a better mechanism then evolution for the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record.

Something like the tower of Babel and Noah's flood had to happen. For the diversity of life in the way that observes it today, there had to be a time when there was a high birth rate, low death rate and the ability of very small groups to go off on their own and be able to survive. That would only happen if the earth was devoid of animal life. That would happen after the World Wide flood.

See! Creationism is a claim, not a mechanism.

Evolution is a claim. The mathematics of the cost of natural selection and of population genetics shows that there there is no mechanism to evolution. Evolution is simply a belief.

To compare so far:
Evolution: Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

This has proven to be false and not possible in the time frame of the universe. So that would make evolution a belief.

What you provided: A reference to a tower of Babel, a religious flood story and a claim that Creationism puts limits on genetic change.

Yes, it does because unlike evolution the change that we see can be demonstrated mathematically. The only difference between Creationism and evolution is the starting assumption. Evolution starts with the assumption that the planet was devoid of life or started with a single-celled organism. Creationism starts with the assumption that a diversity of life was created on the planet. All other forces are the same. Modern population genetics and the mathematics of the cost of the natural selection show that the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.

Surely you can see how one provides an explanation, not only for the animals we see now on earth, but also in the fossil record and the other is nothing more than claims made in one of the many available holy books. Claims that must be rejected for putting forth a level of evolution that no person would actually argue for.

Again the mathematics of natural selection and population genetics show the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.

For example, we have over 350,000 species of beetles currently. Imagine what kind of an evolutionary fanatic it would take to argue that all those species evolved since some global flood some thousands of years ago. How can you support such a level of short-term evolution while rejecting that it can happen over longer periods of time? This makes no sense to me.

1st Beetle is an order classification. There are actually 100 families of beetles. A kind is usually limited to families in today's classification system. So that would mean that your 350,000 species of beetles would actually come from 100 families or kinds of beetles. Beetles have a generational time of about 13 days. With a generational time of 13 days means that there has been 112307 generations since the flood.

So after the flood, the number of predators that ate beetles was very low. As a consequence, there would have been an increased birth rate and a decrease in the death rate for all living organisms. So the cost of natural selection would have decreased from 30 to something very low 5 or 10. The excess survival rate would have raised to .6 or .7. So each mutation could become fixed after 7 generations. So after 91 days so from the flood until now 16,043 mutations could have become fixed creating 3500 species.

[JoeyKnothead]

Creationism does explain both the diversity in a realistic time frame (unlike that of evolution) and the fossil record which indicates that all fossils were fossilized in a water environment. The Bible classifies all animals in terms of locomotion, plant life, animals that swim, animals that fly, insects, land animals, and man as a special creation. That is the totality of life on Earth.

Creationism only explains a belief that a magic entity poofed into existence the entire category of life. That life evolves is beyond reasonable doubt.

This even explains the fossil record. The animals that live on the ocean floor are in the deepest layers the animals that swim are next, and land animals are next as a basic trend. That is exactly what would happen in a flood the sediment would cover the ocean floor 1st then the sea creatures would get caught up and the sediment and become fossilized and then land creatures would get caught up in sediment.

This doesn't consider that fossilization can occur in the absence of water, or more clearly, in an arid climate.

There's not enough water for the planet to have been flooded to above the tallest mountains. We notice our resident "earth scientist" seems unware of the math involved in this matter, while continuing to assert the math doesn't allow for the fact that evolution occurs.

Something like the tower of Babel and Noah's flood had to happen. For the diversity of life in the way that observes it today, there had to be a time when there was a high birth rate, low death rate and the ability of very small groups to go off on their own and be able to survive. That would only happen if the earth was devoid of animal life. That would happen after the World Wide flood.

Who gets to define what constitutes a "high" or "low" birthrate? What of those life forms that lie somewhere inbetwixt?

Evolution is a claim.

And a fact. Some of the mechanisms of evolution are open to debate, the fact of evolution is as established as a stubbed toe hurts.

The mathematics of the cost of natural selection and of population genetics shows that there there is no mechanism to evolution. Evolution is simply a belief.

A change in alleles is the ultimate mechanism of evolution. These changed alleles are then "acted upon" in terms of environmental pressures.

To compare so far:
Evolution: Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

This has proven to be false and not possible in the time frame of the universe. So that would make evolution a belief.

Evolution is witnessed in the birth of every child, where it inherits some of its genes from one parent, some other of its genes from the other parent.

These "copies" are never exact, and that's where evolution grabs it a hold.

Yes, it does because unlike evolution the change that we see can be demonstrated mathematically.

Not every form of life is capable of math, so we need to let em know you're upset with em.

As I've stated before, evolution is a fact, if the math doesn't add up, it's the math that's wrong, not the fact.

The only difference between Creationism and evolution is the starting assumption. Evolution starts with the assumption that the planet was devoid of life or started with a single-celled organism.

This is incomplete. That first living organism was composed of atoms* that formed into chemicals, that formed into that organism. *Noting atoms are made up of them some stuff too.

Creationism starts with the assumption that a diversity of life was created on the planet. All other forces are the same.

Whether life was formed by some "creator", evolution has occurred since, and will continue to occur as long as genetic copies are not exact.

Modern population genetics and the mathematics of the cost of the natural selection show that the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.

Evolution doesn't consider how life came to be, only that once it did, it wasn't happy just being it the one form of it.

Again the mathematics of natural selection and population genetics show the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.

Again, evolution doesn't consider how life came to be, only that once it did, it wasn't happy just being it the one form of it.

1st Beetle is an order classification. There are actually 100 families of beetles. A kind is usually limited to families in today's classification system. So that would mean that your 350,000 species of beetles would actually come from 100 families or kinds of beetles. Beetles have a generational time of about 13 days. With a generational time of 13 days means that there has been 112307 generations since the flood.

Beetle evolution is quite a fascinating topic...

Beetles became an evolutionary success with help from stolen microbial genes

The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity

Evolution of the Beetle

So after the flood, the number of predators that ate beetles was very low.

Who decides what's "low"?

As a consequence, there would have been an increased birth rate and a decrease in the death rate for all living organisms.

This doesn't account for those organisms no longer with us.

So the cost of natural selection would have decreased from 30 to something very low 5 or 10. The excess survival rate would have raised to .6 or .7. So each mutation could become fixed after 7 generations. So after 91 days so from the flood until now 16,043 mutations could have become fixed creating 3500 species.

Who decides what constitutes "something very low"?

Notice the use of subjective terms through our creatonist's post.

Concludings?

"God's real y'all, and the beetles prove it!"

[Clownboat]

Creationism does explain both the diversity in a realistic time frame (unlike that of evolution) and the fossil record which indicates that all fossils were fossilized in a water environment.

What it doesn't do is to provide a mechanism that explains the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. Creationism makes claims about the gods creating life on the planet we call earth.

The Bible classifies all animals in terms of locomotion, plant life, animals that swim, animals that fly, insects, land animals, and man as a special creation. That is the totality of life on Earth.

Why should anyone care what your holy book claims?

This even explains the fossil record. The animals that live on the ocean floor are in the deepest layers the animals that swim are next, and land animals are next as a basic trend. That is exactly what would happen in a flood the sediment would cover the ocean floor 1st then the sea creatures would get caught up and the sediment and become fossilized and then land creatures would get caught up in sediment.

Start a global flood thread if you wish. To debate such a thing here would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve.

Something like the tower of Babel and Noah's flood had to happen.

This is faith speak and I no longer suffer from such a thing, but I can sure notice it when I see it.

For the diversity of life in the way that observes it today, there had to be a time when there was a high birth rate, low death rate and the ability of very small groups to go off on their own and be able to survive. That would only happen if the earth was devoid of animal life. That would happen after the World Wide flood.

What world wide flood could you possibly be referring to? I'm aware of a flood story as told in the Bible and in some other places, but you speak as if such a thing actually happened. You are likely one of the last gernerations of humans that will hold to such a tale on earth. When you die, this belief will die along with you just like how we couldn't convince humans that the sun wasn't the center of our galaxy and instead we had to wait for the old to die and educate the young. This is how progress takes place and the flood, like what causes thunder and lightning is no different.

Evolution is a claim.

Please amend your thinking.
Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

The mathematics of the cost of natural selection and of population genetics shows that there there is no mechanism to evolution.

You can lead a horse to water...
The mechanism in evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

Evolution is simply a belief.

It's actually the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations, not simply just a belief.
Your beliefs, like a flood and a tower of babel will die when you do. Less and less humans believe such claims as we increase our knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.

This has proven to be false and not possible in the time frame of the universe.

Readers, please note what he claims is impossible:
"Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."
Instead we get global floods and babel stories!

So that would make evolution a belief.

False, evolution is a fact, you just don't believe in the fact of evolution.

The only difference between Creationism and evolution is the starting assumption. Evolution starts with the assumption that the planet was devoid of life or started with a single-celled organism.

Please amend your thinking. Evolution in fact does not make claims or assumptions about how life began. Creationist make such claims.

Creationism starts with the assumption that a diversity of life was created on the planet.

That assumption is not justified and requires faith in order to believe it because we in fact don't know how life began on this planet. Could have been gods, could have been aliens, could be that life will exist where life can exist. Only those employing faith can pretend to know.

Modern population genetics and the mathematics of the cost of the natural selection show that the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.

Sorry, evolution is a fact. When you die, there will be one less person on earth believing such a thing.

Again the mathematics of natural selection and population genetics show the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.

Say it as much as you need in order to bolster your faith. It changes not the fact that evolution does occur.

1st Beetle is an order classification. There are actually 100 families of beetles. A kind is usually limited to families in today's classification system. So that would mean that your 350,000 species of beetles would actually come from 100 families or kinds of beetles. Beetles have a generational time of about 13 days. With a generational time of 13 days means that there has been 112307 generations since the flood.

Like I said: How can you support such a level of short-term evolution while rejecting that it can happen over longer periods of time?
We can get hundreds of thousands of species of beetles in some thousands of years, but not if we have more time. You know this isn't logical. I cannot support this level/speed of evolution that you suggest must have taken place (while claiming that it doesn't happen mind you).

So after the flood...

Please be mindful that your flood story is a belief that you hold to. One that is dying off and will continue to die off as we educate our children. Referencing it here in a science forum is odd IMO. You might as well be arguing that horses can fly and point to a story about Muhammed. Your beliefs belong in Holy Huddle where they won't be questioned. You bring them up here and expect them to be taken seriously, that is asking quite a lot I hope you understand.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #0]

What it doesn't do is to provide a mechanism that explains the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. Creationism makes claims about the gods creating life on the planet we call earth.

Actually, Creationism says that life on earth began with billions of kinds of life and change came about from these billions of different kinds.
Evolution says that life began as a single cell and change came from that point. So then the question is which one assumption is possible. The only assumption that is possible is Creationism.

This even explains the fossil record. The animals that live on the ocean floor are in the deepest layers the animals that swim are next, and land animals are next as a basic trend. That is exactly what would happen in a flood the sediment would cover the ocean floor 1st then the sea creatures would get caught up and the sediment and become fossilized and then land creatures would get caught up in sediment.

Start a global flood thread if you wish. To debate such a thing here would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve.

I have defended this statement before many times. "Evolutionary" evidence also supports this. Evolutionary theory is dependent on bottlenecks. The difference is the amount of change that evolution theorizes and the amount of change that creationism theorizes.

Something like the tower of Babel and Noah's flood had to happen.

This is faith speak and I no longer suffer from such a thing, but I can sure notice it when I see it.

"Evolutionary theory needs bottlenecks in its make-believe story about human evolution. Many bottle necks.

What world wide flood could you possibly be referring to? I'm aware of a flood story as told in the Bible and in some other places, but you speak as if such a thing actually happened. You are likely one of the last gernerations of humans that will hold to such a tale on earth. When you die, this belief will die along with you just like how we couldn't convince humans that the sun wasn't the center of our galaxy and instead we had to wait for the old to die and educate the young. This is how progress takes place and the flood, like what causes thunder and lightning is no different.

There have been many that have had this hope, but they have all died and Christianity lives on.

The mechanism in evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

No, Evolution is differentiated from creationism by the belief in large-scale changes in the genome by this mechanism. This belief has been shown not to be possible. So evolution has no mechanism for large-scale changes in the genome. That can occur with in the time frame of the universe.

This has proven to be false and not possible in the time frame of the universe.

Readers, please note what he claims is impossible:
"Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."
Instead we get global floods and babel stories!

I have already shown large-scale changes in the genome are not possible. Evolution theory theorizes bottlenecks and catastrophes. The evidence of at least one global catastrophe is not even debated. The problem is the change in the genomes that are needed both size and arrangement.

False, evolution is a fact, you just don't believe in the fact of evolution.

Then show through population genetics how it is a fact.

Please amend your thinking. Evolution in fact does not make claims or assumptions about how life began. Creationist make such claims.

That is really nothing more than an admission of the failure of the naturalistic belief system. But evolution does make an assumption about the amount of life that started on the Earth.

That assumption is not justified and requires faith in order to believe it because we in fact don't know how life began on this planet. Could have been gods, could have been aliens, could be that life will exist where life can exist. Only those employing faith can pretend to know.

I agree with you.

If you believe in evolution you have faith that life began as a cell. In science, we call this making an assumption but whatever you want to call it.

Creatinsim makes the assumption that life started with billions of different kinds of animals.

Which assumption is possible?

Modern population genetics and the mathematics of the cost of the natural selection show that the starting assumption of evolution is not possible.
Sorry, evolution is a fact. When you die, there will be one less person on earth believing such a thing.

If your assumption is true then you should be able to prove it mathematically.

Like I said: How can you support such a level of short-term evolution while rejecting that it can happen over longer periods of time?
We can get hundreds of thousands of species of beetles in some thousands of years, but not if we have more time. You know this isn't logical. I cannot support this level/speed of evolution that you suggest must have taken place (while claiming that it doesn't happen mind you).

The difference in the theories is the starting assumptions not whether genetic drift and natural selection happen. Creationism has always maintained that small genetic changes were possible and that it is limited to occurring within a kind. Large changes in the genome are not possible and have been shown not to be possible.

Please be mindful that your flood story is a belief that you hold to. One that is dying off and will continue to die off as we educate our children. Referencing it here in a science forum is odd IMO. You might as well be arguing that horses can fly and point to a story about Muhammed. Your beliefs belong in Holy Huddle where they won't be questioned. You bring them up here and expect them to be taken seriously, that is asking quite a lot I hope you understand.

Again, at least one worldwide catastrophe is not disputed in the geophysics community. In fact, there is more evidence of some type of worldwide flood than there is for any of the other worldwide catastrophe theories.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #423]

Evolution is witnessed in the birth of every child, where it inherits some of its genes from one parent, some other of its genes from the other parent.

These "copies" are never exact, and that's where evolution grabs it a hold.

No, it is not. The probability of the change becoming fixed in the population would be 1 in 1.6E7. The length of time for that to occur would be 3.2E10 generations. Using population genetics. Or 6.4E11 years. Most of the stars in the universe would have died out before that genetic change became fixed in the entire human population.

If if we just limit to the United States 400,000,000 people. The odds of the genetic change becoming fixed would be 800,000,000 to 1, and even if the genetic change would become fixed it would take. 1.6 billion years. On the bright side, the sun would still have another 6 billion years of life. Get it the bright side.

[brunumb]

So after the flood, the number of predators that ate beetles was very low. As a consequence, there would have been an increased birth rate and a decrease in the death rate for all living organisms.

You have not addressed the issue of MVP, minimum viable population for survival of a species in the wild. It is not 2. It is much higher than 2. And that even takes into account a suitable environment with adequate food. Hardly the case in a world devastated by the flood.

[brunumb]

Evolution is a claim. The mathematics of the cost of natural selection and of population genetics shows that there there is no mechanism to evolution. Evolution is simply a belief.

Perhaps there is some mathematics in this book that will help you out.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #423]

Evolution is witnessed in the birth of every child, where it inherits some of its genes from one parent, some other of its genes from the other parent.

These "copies" are never exact, and that's where evolution grabs it a hold.

No, it is not. The probability of the change becoming fixed in the population would be 1 in 1.6E7. The length of time for that to occur would be 3.2E10 generations. Using population genetics. Or 6.4E11 years. Most of the stars in the universe would have died out before that genetic change became fixed in the entire human population.

If if we just limit to the United States 400,000,000 people. The odds of the genetic change becoming fixed would be 800,000,000 to 1, and even if the genetic change would become fixed it would take. 1.6 billion years. On the bright side, the sun would still have another 6 billion years of life. Get it the bright side.

What you're trying to do is calculate estimates against a change that's so often already occurred.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #427]

You have not addressed the issue of MVP, minimum viable population for survival of a species in the wild. It is not 2. It is much higher than 2. And that even takes into account a suitable environment with adequate food. Hardly the case in a world devastated by the flood.

The number is actually 500 for the cost of survival that we see today. But we also have examples of what happens when species do not have any predators. The cost of survival decreases and the offspring excess increases. So after the flood, there would not have been much of a wild just a world full of plants. Because of the decrease in cost and the increase in excess offspring, it would drastically decrease the MVP.

• Unsustainable population growth occurs due to many factors, including decreased mortality, increased birth rates, the removal of natural predators, migration, and more. https://www.studysmarter.us/explanation ... and%20more.

The above are all costs that Haldane has in his calculation.