Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm fairly sure it awas Henry Morris, in Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood, who said that it had been calculated that all the species who needed to go on the Ark would fit into 1.5 decks, & the food needed for humans & animals fit on half a deck, leaving a full deck for Noah & his family
Well you couldn’t fit all the species native to Australia alone on 1.5 decks of a wooden ship unless the thing was unimaginably enormous. Then we have all the species native to Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. The Mamals alone would require tremendous amounts of space. Unless of course Noah was only taking their ancestors on board and awaiting for them to evolve after hey got off! Or unless the “global” flood was not global at all but limited to a small region in the middle east.
Either way the 1.5 decks thing only works if you reject a literal interpretation of the bible, which is fair enough.
Originally Posted by mrversatile48
What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists,
Well that's not actually that true, after all no one believed scientists when we said that GM crops would be safe, that's why so many governments have banned them and we see protests against them in countries that have not.
Originally Posted by mrversatile48
who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business, yet totally discount the unique wisdom, knowledge, integrity & power of Almighty God
That's not true either, let me demonstrate how it works in my experience;
1). Governments ask a question,
2). They hire scientists to give them an answer.
3). We give them an answer
4). They decide they don’t like the answer we gave them
5). They ask a civil servant to give them an entirely different answer.
6). Knowing where his bread is buttered the civil servant gives the government the answer they told him to find.
7). The Scientist gets 2 minutes on the news to try and explain why what he said and what the government are saying differ.
8). The Government builds policy on the answer they got from the civil servant.
This is sometimes followed by
9). Everything goes disastrously wrong.
10). the government claims they “took advice from a wide range of sources, including leading scientists in the filed”.
11). The newspapers track down the scientists involved in steps 2-3 and point out what the government said in step 8.
12). The Scientist points out whilst he was consulted he was then ignored.
13). The Newspaper prints the bit where the scientists admits he was consulted but mysteriously neglects to print the bit where he points out his advice was then ignored
14). The Government covers the whole lot up before any one asks the right questions by immediately announcing another major policy study on an entirely different subject/invading some where/leaking details of a affair that some back bencher they can afford to be without is having behind his wife's back.
of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".
Ah yes, or the "Gloop, Gloop" effect as we jokingly called it at college, after the noise made as all those problems converge to an ultimate, and obvious conclusion.
Indeed it can't. Remember speciation means a new species, not a new genus or order. The new species will always be closely related to, and very much like the parent species. It would take a sequence of many, many, many speciations to increase the difference between an ancestor and a descendant species to the point where they belonged in different taxonomic categories.
And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.
What good would that do, when it is nature that is the source of the fuzziness---not our inability to describe species?
The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.
Without evolution there would be no adaptability.
What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.
To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and
Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.
b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.
I will wait to comment until I am sure I am understanding your statements here.
ult will be a change in the characteristics of the species over generations. That's evolution.
But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.
change is significant enough, it may lead to new species. Note that the process is evolution, whether or not it leads to new species.
But notice your own words here, it may lead not fact that it does lead to, but rather the possibility that it could. It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all. That is exactly what makes both theories and neither fact.
But over time, it is pretty much inevitable that you will get new species through the accumulation of many changes.
Not if reproductive abilities are lost. Which is always a possibility and data would suggest that this possibility exists.
Sure it does. You can't show that speciation has occurred unless you have criteria for what is and is not a species. And in many cases we can say that a group is a species. It is only in borderline cases where things get fuzzy. Just as most of the time there is no question as to whether a colour is green or blue. But when you get to those in-between cases of greenish-blue or blue-green, it is not so easy to categorize them.
And having a better definition doesn't help, because the fault is not in the definition. The fuzziness is part of the reality of nature.
And this fuzziness should pertain to both groups, and all theories.
It is not a matter of manipulating the data. (Manipulated data would have a hard time getting through peer review.)
I did not say that it was a manipulation of the data, only the manipulation of the definition,
Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote
In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species. This does not mean that E has been proven, it means that I have manipulated the definition enough to suggest that E is fact. This is what I was refering too, not manipulating the data to show that the neonate is something it is not.
Rather it is recognizing that it is nature itself that is creating the fuzzy species line.
Agreed
And that TOE explains this reality; TOE expects the lines to be fuzzy, because if evolution is fact, the species lines must be fuzzy during the process of speciation.
C can accept this fuzziness due to the adaptability that God created within the species.
I don't know if you are saying that creationism expects the species lines to be clear-cut. But if it does, its expectations are not supported by observation.
Because of the vastness of the universe and the adaptability observed within the species, C can easily accept this fuzziness in nature. I would imagine that some C beliefs do not allow this, but that is not at the root of the theory and has been addressed in discussions about YEC etc.
well the fact that as we descend through the fossil record, the canidae fossils become less and less canid like.
Already addressed the inconclusive nature of the fossil record. We need more proof in order to assert more than simply assumptions. Assumptions not equaling fact.
Already addressed the inconclusive nature of the fossil record. We need more proof in order to assert more than simply assumptions. Assumptions not equaling fact.
ok, explain the order of therapsids, homonids, cetaceans, carnivores, sea snails and theropods to me then. there are lots more I can hunt down if you like, though there are a few other things, such as the lack of sharks teeth in the cambrian, lack of whales in the cambrian, lack of mammals in the cambrian, lack of birds in the cambrian, lack of pretty much any modern organism in the cambrian really. lack of homonids in the jurassic, lack of homonids in the devonian, lack of homonids in the silurian, lack of birds in the silurian, lack of passenger pigeons pretty much anywhere - do we need to go on? there is no particular reason for the ordering of all the fossils, and it seems pretty strange that there isn't a single whale, shark or cod right at the bottom of the geological record. and absolutely no trilobytes and ammonites later on in the fossil record. absolutely all of these things fit in with the pattern of evolution, increasingly derived characteristics appear higher up in the strata. It's not like you find any reptiles in romer's gap or anything, just primitive tetrapods. care to offer an explanation and tell me why all of this is inconclusive?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.
but where do you define an entirely new animal? Is archaeopteryx an entirely new animal? is cynodont an entirely new animal. why do some therapsids have both a reptillian and a mammalian jaw at the same time? Surely that's pretty stupid if you are designing something, since a joint reptillian and mammalian jaw, while more advanced than a reprillian jaw depending on the lifestyle, is far inferior to a mammalian jaw in the same lifestyle. are humans and chimps entirely new animals. the human just appears to be pretty much a neotenic primate with a few other changes to it. genetically they are about the same.
The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.
oh creationists can have just as much flexibility in their definition of species as they like, after all it is just a copy of the biological definition of species after all. The problem is the extra definition, namely that of "kinds." which are supposedly inviolate. I suppose a creationist could add the extra definition that a species is a sub-kind which has become genetically separated from other sub-kinds, but still the kind is sat there nigling away, waiting to be defined.
What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.
but remembe rthat the creationist places artificial barriers on this adaptability without ever really defining those limits. so often we hear "well ok they can vary, but only a bit".... but never how much they can vary. can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.
Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.
neotenic. the point is that you claimed that large variations cannot occur, when this demonstrates that they can.
I will wait to comment until I am sure I am understanding your statements here.
But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.
how much change do you require before it becomes obvious to you?
Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote
In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species. This does not mean that E has been proven, it means that I have manipulated the definition enough to suggest that E is fact. This is what I was refering too, not manipulating the data to show that the neonate is something it is not.
again, the creationists have as much flexibility in the species definition as biologists, where they don't have the fizziness is in kinds, because kinds shouldn't be flexible (each animal produces after it's own kind, two of each kind went onto the ark) and so on....
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
If a storm passes your house in the night, filled with lightning, and the next morning you find a tree with a long charged scar down its trunk.
Is it an assumption that lightning when it meets resistance burns?
First off, without eye witnesses, we would even be assming that lightning struck the tree. it would require more observation to determine if the lightening scared the tree or something else happened while you were sleeping.
Secondly, yes it is an assumption that lightning when it meets resistance burns until more observations are done and further scientific data obtained.
Thirdly, what is your point? That animals evolve beyond species, this is a much huger leap than simple lightening and without further evidence to back it, lightening stricking a tree is still speculation not fact, until other evidence is observed. BTW, I wouldn't want to be the scientist standing there observing the tree when it was being hit by lightening, would you
Or unless the “global” flood was not global at all but limited to a small region in the middle east.
Linear Mode
