1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: May 25, 2007, 02:11:29 PM »

You could probably find them on the Internet.
There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and there are also guys (forgot how they call themselves) who believe that the lack of "missing links" can be explained by instant jumps prom species to species. And i'm sure that is not a full list.

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: May 25, 2007, 01:14:12 PM »

I suppose that's true. Although, it's rather easy to explain anything when you say "there is a supernatural being that can do anything and everything". Where is the fun in that?

I still fail to see why people pit evolution vs. creation. They are quite capable of co-existing. Nothing in evolution inhibits the ideas of creation.

Not necessarily. The process of Creation was completed in 6 days after that natural laws, that were set previous to creation, took over. So all facts found after the First Week can be explained by natural laws.

There are many fundamental differences between creation and evolution. The biggest one is: creation rejects macro-evolution whereas evolution embraces it. Of course there are different flavors of creation that believe different things, just as there are different versions of evolution that interpret the facts differently, which only illustrates the point that evolution, just as creation, requires a great deal of faith to be accepted.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: May 25, 2007, 12:40:28 PM »

I agree that we see the effects, but I don't think its evolution.

Every FACT that was discovered and interpreted to support evolution can be explained in terms of creation.
Bring some facts up and I will try to put another interpretation on them. I don't claim to know everything, but I'll try to explain what I can.

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution

« on: May 25, 2007, 10:47:12 AM »

There are also libraries of evidence of medical miracles that science cannot explain. Countless stories of people witnessing power of God. If you cannot see God it doesn't mean he does not exist. Same with the wind, you can't see it, but yet everyone knows its there.

Also those libraries of evidence for evolution you are referring to is nothing more then peoples' interpretations of the facts. Interpretations are influenced by believes, and since "general scientific belief" is towards the evolution, all the findings will be interpreted as evidence of evolution.

Belief that one small dot exploded and created all matter in the Universe has no more scientific merit than the notion of Creation.

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 03:35:45 PM »

Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in freshwater.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 14, 2006, 03:27:50 PM »

Elephants do have quite different bone densities

So why can't evolution just change bone density and size to accomodate change in mass?

Did you just say that limit of fly's change is determined by the chemistry of their bodies? Sounds like a limiting factor to me, does it not?

Yes, but it is not a limiting factor evolution imposes on itself.

I don't care who or what imposes limits, I'm simply stating that they exist. If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 02:37:38 PM »

Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives.

Fine, but you're missing the point.  If the modern representatives cannot interbreed, then macroevolution is responsible.

But they can, Siberian sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon same kind, can breed, and one is strictly fresh another isn't.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 02:26:46 PM »

Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in freshwater.

From www.answersingenesis.com
"Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species.  These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish.  Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives.  This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the Flood"

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 14, 2006, 02:12:01 PM »

A pig cannot grow beyond a certain point because its skeletal structure would be unable to support its weight- and if pigs were selected to grow a radically different skeletal structure, they could grow much larger- but such a change would take millions of years (perhaps less with cleverly implemented artificial selection).

They don't need radical changes in structure, same structure only bigger, thicker and longer leg bones. There are decorative pigs that are no bigger than 50 lbs, and there are big ones 400 lbs ones, both have same skeletal structures, only difference - size. So if 50 pound one can be made into 400 pound one why stop there? Lets go to 40000 lbs. After all, elephants are bigger than pigs and they don't have radical differences in skeleton structure from pigs.

A fly cannot resist impacts with a certain amount of force because the materials it is made of possess a certain inherent strength, determined by their chemistry.

Did you just say that limit of fly's change is determined by the chemistry of their bodies? Sounds like a limiting factor to me, does it not?

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 01:53:52 PM »

How about this theory:

Several kinds of fresh water fish survived flood waters. During land mass formation (which, according to hydroplane theory, started happening about a month or two after flood) they got caught up in those lakes, that eventually got filled with rain water, So fresh water fish only had to survive salt water for 3 to 10 months, until it was back in fresh rain waters again. I don't know how fast diffusion is between salt and fresh water, but possibly they could have find less salty water closer to the surface, which helped them survive.
This theory also predicts that there will be less fresh water fish kinds than salt water fish kinds (I don't know if it is true or not).

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 14, 2006, 01:28:45 PM »

Limits on a pig's size or a fly's resistance to a swatter are more due to the laws of physics than biology. Try again.

No it isn't, it's biology. Now you try.

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 14, 2006, 11:41:34 AM »

I believe that gradual changes, that microevolution produces, have limits.

You may have a bug that develops resistance to specific poison, but I don't think there can be a bug with resistance to a fly swatter. Or there are a lot of farmers who try to produce bigger pigs, I bet they can't produce ones the size of a whale. So if there are limits of what you can do within a kind, then surely there must be limits that prevent producing a different kind alltogether.

13

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 11:28:44 AM »

All over first chapter of Genesis you'll find words: "bring forth after its/his kind". I assume those words mean that kind can produce offspring.


I believe that gradual changes, that microevolution produces, have limits that prevent them from producing a different kind. But this discussion is off topic.

Can saltwater fish and freshwater fish produce offspring together?

I don't know, but what is known is that there are many kinds of fish that can live in both fresh and salt water. So maybe those kinds survived and replenished rivers and oceans. Or maybe the solinity of ocean was different back than (say, less salty), so that some fresh fish adapted to the change.

14

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 09:53:09 AM »

Point is not here. Two "bacterias" can be more different genetically than human and sequoia. Then, we have two possibilities:
- All bacteria are not one kind.
- Human and sequoia belongs to one kind, since they're more closer than many "bacterias" to each other.

Pardon, another possibility exists, most often chosen by creationists:
- We define 'kind" as we please and when it is convienent, often ignoring Bible in process.

Bible defines kind as the possibility of two representatives on that kind to successfully have offspring. It's quite simple, really.

I want to see barrier between "micro" and "macroevolution", not definition of these.

In other words, why "major evolutionary transition" is not possible to achieve with many, many "gradual accumulation of mutations"?

Correct. In other words, micro operates within a kind (changing color, size and shape), whereas macro allegedly produces new kinds.

15

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 07:46:19 AM »

And I never seen creationist pointing where is that magic barrier between "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

Creationists did not come up with those terms. The reason there are two terms is because they mean two different things (otherwise it would be just one name). The difference between terms can be discovered by looking up terms in dictionary. Like this.

mi-cro-ev-o-lu-tion
–noun Biology
Evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.  

mi-cro-ev-o-lu-tion
–noun Biology
Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.


See the difference?

16

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 14, 2006, 07:38:09 AM »

a fact which many creationists actually admit- they simply claim that "kinds" are much larger.

Yeah, sometime as large as "bacteria" kind as whole. Of course, if any "bacteria" (in laymans term) belong to one kind, then human and sequoia are one kind as well.

Can human and sequoia have offspring? If not - they are different kinds.

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 14, 2006, 12:16:48 AM »

OK, sure, your cat was a vegitarian.  I'm not saying they can't consume some veggies, but they can't live off of it exclusively (By the way, I have three cats living with me now, and have had several otheres in the past.  If we try to feed them too much dry food, they start dragging in their own meat.  Nothing more fun than cleaning half of a mouse out of the food dish)

Extreme situations call for extreme measures. Most carnivores eat once a week or even month anyway, so a couple of months of veganism is berable especially if another alternative is death.

And an adult elephant eats about 300 lbs of food a day, that would be 204000 lbs of food to feed the pair for 340 days.  And someone from 200BC, using hand tools built a wooden vessel the size of an aircraft carrier, that could house all the animals and food (and fresh water, since they were floating in salt water) needed? (the elephants need 70 to 200 liters a day, each)

So than it is a good thing he didn't bring an adult elephant huh? Young animals take less space, eat less and sleep more, that's perfect for a 40 day boating trip.

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 14, 2006, 12:07:42 AM »

And you didn't answer my question about Catholics.

We have minor diagreements (mainly: they accept evolution and I don't) but overall same religion.

p.s. flood discussion seems to have been upgraded to it's own topic, so I'd go there for flood.

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 13, 2006, 11:59:47 PM »

Presumably the story of the great flood was part of human mythology for a very long time and as we split into various cultures we maintained our mythology but obviously - as is the case with all word of mouth stories - the stories evolved.

But there were people in the Yucatan long before Noah & co.... how did the flood myth get to them?

Maybe flood myth got to them because they were descendants of Noah, and lived after him, not before?

20

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 13, 2006, 11:55:29 PM »

How did the fresh water and salt water fish both survive?

Microevolution.

edit: and if God is so powerful why didn't he just remove all the bad people without having to create a flood etc. ?

A couple of reasons:
Since Noah built the arc for a long time, it was a constant reminder to pre-flood people to repent and change for better.
Miracle does not leave any evidence. Global flood does. God did it so people would remember what happens if you don't listen to him.

21

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 13, 2006, 11:35:09 AM »

googleSearch, you gave up debating with me long ago (or at least, have been extremely selective as to which points you respond to) and I've never attacked your person, only your arguments.

I know, message was directed to people who did: dysfunction and beast.

All the rest of you can keep your heads where they are.

22

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 13, 2006, 10:39:16 AM »

It's not a fallacy to attack the messenger once the message has been thoroughly defeated.

So you think you defeted the message? With your space rock arguments and stupid assumptions?

Sure, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

23

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 13, 2006, 10:16:02 AM »

No, what you need is to pull you heads out of your asses and look around, there are other possibilities in life. You know, think outside the box (well in your case it's outside your ass).


I see no furthur point in talking to people who attck the messenger instead of the message.

24

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 13, 2006, 08:44:35 AM »

So If it rained for 40 days and covered the mountains by 16 cubits, (that's 362 inches per hour by the way...A pretty good storm) how did the animals on the Arc breathe?  Not just because of the rain in the air, but because the air is really thin above Mt. Everest, climbers die fairly quickly without 02 tanks.

There was no Mt.Everest, or any high mountans for that matter. Earth was a lot different back then.

How did the sea creatures not explode? (Most salt water fish can not live in fresh water, their high saline content causes them to absorb too much water and their cells rupture)

Again, you assume flood was fresh water for some reason, most of water came from under the crust, where its been sitting, disolving a bunch of salts.

What did the cats and other meat eaters eat? (Out side of fairy tales, meat eaters do not do well on hay, they don't have the guts for it).  Sure, you can say "God changed them so they could", but if He's going through that much trouble, why not just let them breathe water?

You probably haven't been around animals much, have you? Or been very hungry yourself. When I was 15 my grandma had a cat, forgot the name of it, but that cat prefered cucumbers and bananas to meat, and was completely healthy.

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 13, 2006, 08:32:47 AM »

Dear little EnCrypto, you claimed to understand creationism better than me, and yet you don't know answers to such simple questions? Fine, I will educate you.

Other points of interest:
-There isn't enough water on Earth (even in the ice caps) to flood the entire world.

Only if you assume preflood world' topography was the same as it is now. I assume it wasn't.

Not to mention the lack of flood myths in ancient cultures not affected by some major flood, and the fact that no single vessel could carry and/or sustain all life on Earth.

That's not true. There are dosens of flood legends in many cultures. Arc contained a pair of each kind of animal, not every possible variation.

Even the flying animals couldn't flying for 40 days straight, especially not in a constant downpour, and all life needs food, which would be difficult to harvest on a boat.

Hmm, Noah probably brought a couple of things with him to feed himself and animals, don't you think?

-The air would be so saturated with water by that amount of rain for that duration that it would drown any living creature unable to breathe in water.

This question shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of creationism. Most water came from under the crust, not in form of rain. Two years back in Portland Oregon it rained for 60+ consecutive days, non-stop, and noone drowned from breathing

- If you plan on ever explaining the Grand Canyon, then just refute all of the dinosaur, geology, dendrology stuff by saying that God created a universe that would appear, in every sense, to be older than it actually was.

And if you believe that river carved that canyon, you better check the elevations of the river and canyon, make a chart and put on it elevations from the beginning of that river all the way to the end of canyon. And since you "understand both the theory of evolution and the declaration of creationism" you should discover a very interesting fact. And while you do that keep in mind that river do not flow uphill

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 12, 2006, 04:38:41 PM »

Little google, before you can argue about evolution, you must first prove that you understand it; what the theory of evolution states, what it predicts, etc.

The Origin of Life is a misnomer. Evolution has never claimed to have an answer to the beginnings of life, but merely given explanation to the observable fact that lifeforms change. There is more evidence backing up and a better understanding of the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity.

Not to mention that many of the dating methods you try so hard (and fail) to debunk and decry have been used to accurately date religious artifacts, confirming [and in some cases, officially (as in, coming to a result recognized by The Church) impugn] their authenticity.

Other points of interest:
-There isn't enough water on Earth (even in the ice caps) to flood the entire world. Not to mention the lack of flood myths in ancient cultures not affected by some major flood, and the fact that no single vessel could carry and/or sustain all life on Earth. Even the flying animals couldn't flying for 40 days straight, especially not in a constant downpour, and all life needs food, which would be difficult to harvest on a boat.

-The air would be so saturated with water by that amount of rain for that duration that it would drown any living creature unable to breathe in water.

- If you plan on ever explaining the Grand Canyon, then just refute all of the dinosaur, geology, dendrology stuff by saying that God created a universe that would appear, in every sense, to be older than it actually was.

-If you look at other cultures and civilizations (ones that predate Judaism) you'll see similar myths; not proving that they happened (because there are a wide array of differences and they'd have some s'plainin' to do), but proving that these are basic questions inherent to the human condition: Where did we come from? Why does "this" happen? What comes after we die? What does it all mean, where are we going?

I'm agnostic, and look at the Bible in a historical context, I look at the books REMOVED from the Bible as proof that MAN intended for the followers to take it literally so as to prevent them from gaining and seeking out knowledge, from questioning things, and to keep them "in their place."

All your point are common atheistic misunderstandings and have been addressed by me and other creationists on internet sites, books, and journal publications.

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 12, 2006, 04:33:43 PM »

"You think an invisible force keeps you on the ground"

"You think you come from a white, sticky fluid filled with tiny little creatures that make their way through a tunnel and race to be the first one to make it to an egg? Like a chicken egg?"

"You think men come from dust and clay and women come from the first man's rib?"

"You think that the one and only reason people experience any bad in their life is because thousands of years ago two people ate an apple because a snake told them to?"

Exactly right.

28

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 12, 2006, 04:29:29 PM »

Look, a few vague photos is not going to disprove a theory that stands on solid ground of testable, repeatable evidence. And even so, if a few dinosaurs survived, so what? That doesn't falsify evolution. We found surviving Coelacanths, which were thought to have been extinct since the time of the dinosaurs. Evolution doesn't mandate that all species change radically. If a species occupies a niche with little competition, and its environment doesn't change, it could easily undergo very little evolution for millions of years. Sharks, many species of reptiles, many unicellular organisms, have all changed very little for tens of millions of years. So what?

You should probably review you theory once again, especially its timeline, and don't forget to look up the reason why mamals' evolution took off, and the reason why dino fossils are found in lower layers of strata.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 12, 2006, 04:21:55 PM »

And again, I don't believe I came from a space rock, or any kind of rock for that matter. I explained abiogenesis to you, and yet you still latch on to the rock thing in an attempt to make me look silly. Rocks are not involved, rather the building of more and more complex organic structures through chemistry until reproduction can begin. After that, evolution takes over.

Didn't you say that aminoacids from which your abiogenesis started were deposited on Earth by an asteroid? Since aminoacids cannot fly or survive in space they were probably enclosed in rocky shell of an asteroid, so if it wasn't for the the asteroid's rocky shell you'd have no abiogenesis and no evolution. Hence: you come from a space rock, accept it and get over it.

30

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 12, 2006, 04:01:50 PM »

No. It is simply laughable that you think a scientific theory would be threatened by barely, if at all credible reports of sea monsters.

Why is it laughable?

You believe that you come from a space rock and you think sighting of a dinosaur is laughable?

Do you even think before you write?