What Evolution Is and Is Not:

atomweaver said:

Originally Posted by Dicionary of Scientists

Our knowledge of Leucippus comes from the writings of Aristotle and Theophrastus. He is said to have been the teacher of Democritus and author of the Great World System and On Mind. He is also credited with being the originator of atomic theory, although it is difficult to distinguish his contributions from those of his pupil Democritus.


​

Sloppy source, AVVET. Leucippian philosophical atomism didn't have the ability to conceive of something as simple as a vacuum (the absence of matter). Its as far removed from any scientific atomic theory as The Noahic Flood story is removed from the Epic of Gilgamesh...

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Wow --- excuse Leucippus for not getting it right the first time.

Click to expand...

Let's castigate Clyde Tombaugh while we're at it too, eh?

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

Actually, I can back it up. With pages and pages of evidence.

Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe, and the implications of such an interpretation are investigated below. Some creationists provided even more detailed models, and these are also addressed (see especially sections 5 and 7).

References are listed at the end of each section.

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

2. Gathering the Animals
Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

• Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
• Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
• Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
• Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

Click to expand...

loveiseverywhere said:

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

Click to expand...

Jester4kicks said:

Ummmm.... goddidit.




Sure! goddidit.




goddidit.



goddidit.

goddidit.

goddidit.


and....


goddidit.




goddidit.





goddidit.




goddidit.

Click to expand...

Jester4kicks said:

Wait, wait... I wanna give this a try.




The past was different than now so the evidence would be different than we expect.




Ummmm.... goddidit.




Sure! goddidit.




goddidit.



[/list]
goddidit.

goddidit.

goddidit.


and....


goddidit.




goddidit.





goddidit.




goddidit.




Wow! That was easy! No wonder David likes his little world. When you don't have to think about anything, you can say whatever you like!

Click to expand...

redwards said:

I dub this: "Occam's hammer."

Click to expand...

redwards said:

I dub this: "Occam's hammer."

Anything that can be explained via miracle, is a miracle.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

You're too late.

We've already claimed it as our motto.

Click to expand...

redwards said:

I dub this: "Occam's hammer."

Anything that can be explained via miracle, is a miracle.

Click to expand...

atomweaver said:

It'd be good if you-all would hit a few philosophical nails with it...

Click to expand...