Dr. Dino, a look at an article...

Pete Harcoff · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 09:09 PM mjiracek said this in Post #57

give me an example of a new species of animal...

Here and here.

I'd also like to mention this quote from AIG:

Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation. (emphasis mine)

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 01:31 AM CoHehir said this in Post #46

The previous response was to a gradual system of population growth. In more recent history the gradual population growth is feasible, since nearly billion people live on earth, many who are competing for food sources. Population has simply slowed down. At the time immediately following the flood, and any time with humans (as we tend to be able to reason things out and within a matter of hours configure a 'technology' that will do the trick) we have been able to move farther from our origin point and make a life easily. Noah's grandchildren moved great distances to find land with plenty of resources. Nothing held them back from exploding into hundreds and thousands within a few generations. A small population can easily double within one generation.

So  what you are saying is that population growth is not uniform. This is true.  This means that it is totally absurd to make a "uniformitarian" assumption of population growth as Morris and Hovind have done.  You have just falsified the young earth evidence you presented earlier.  

This population growth argument is so completely stupid that it is amazing to me that any one still falls for it.   Just as an example,  in past times the population shrunk as well as grew, sometimes over long periods. Did you ever hear of the plague? The population of Europe at the end of the 14th century fell significantly from the begining of the 14th century, perhaps to as little as 1/2, and didn't recover until near the end of the 15th century. If that constant rate had continued the there would have been no one on earth before now.

BTW the idea that anyone could make a life easily in a world that had been underwater for almost a year is also ridiculous but that's another story. 

Note: We seem to have two discussions going on at once here but I don't think this absurd population growth argument is worth is worth its own thread or any further discussion here or anywhere else.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

CoHehir · Apr 16, 2003

But you are also assuming any humans who reproduced simply sat where they were; then they grew and grew and grew. This is not the case. Human populations have a tendency to wander (we're odd like that). When we do wander, we replant somewhere else, where carrying capacity is not a problem.

Really, the carrying capacity of an acre would be a few more than 8 people. I don't think they marked it off and stayed inside - they checked out the rest of the land, and moved as far as they could.

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 08:11 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #59

This isn't about proof. This is about evidence and the logically deducted theory that best explains that evidence.

if its not about proof then while are we talking about testing things in the first place?

Arikay · Apr 16, 2003

Anyway. To add something to the original post.

As you can see, Creationist groups seem to be perfectly happy to provide peope with False Evidence to support their claims (as we can see in the original post, and the K/Ar dating article). This willingness to give false evidence to support their side goes against science and against the beliefs that they are supposably protecting.

CoHehir · Apr 16, 2003

I'm not saying life was easy in the weeks after a flood. But neither were 4 generations born in that time. The earth became very livable in the next 5, 10, 20 years, just about the time a third generation might have considered moving away.

Pete Harcoff · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 09:15 PM CoHehir said this in Post #63

But you are also assuming any humans who reproduced simply sat where they were; then they grew and grew and grew. This is not the case. Human populations have a tendency to wander (we're odd like that). When we do wander, we replant somewhere else, where carrying capacity is not a problem.

Really, the carrying capacity of an acre would be a few more than 8 people. I don't think they marked it off and stayed inside - they checked out the rest of the land, and moved as far as they could.

Not all environments are created equal.

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

ok i am reading you link harcoff ill get to you in a few

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 16, 2003

Because science works by deducing the most logical explanation of the evidence. Strictly speaking, nothing in science can be proven. The scientific theory is the pinnacle of the scientific process. Testing gives evidence that either supports or rejects the initial hypothesis. You might want to also read about the scientific method to get a better impression of how science works.

In fact, this issue about proof vs. evidence and the nature of the scientific method is addressed in several other threads. Perhaps you should read some of the other threads in the forum as well because many points here have already been addressed.

CoHehir · Apr 16, 2003

Not all environments are created equal.

Right, very true. Created, you said?

Anyways, except for a Sahara Desert of sand dunes without rain, there are very few places on earth that are completely uninhabitable. In fact, more places are inhabitable by a less technologically-based culture.

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

way to go cohehir. yeah why would it be hard to live on a planet that obviously had recent rains? wouldnt the ground be arable enough for that?

seebs · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 06:02 PM mjiracek said this in Post #3
i like your style arikay...lol. ok here is an interesting point. i think mr hovind spoke incorrectly. while creationist say that things so adapt so they can better survive there is no recorded evidence of genetic information being added to the species. there fore information levels stay the same or decrease. i have not seen any examples of information being added to any mutation

That one's simply false, based on clever equivocation on what constitutes "new information". There are many recorded examples of changes which, over time, amount to "new information". The trick is that, when information is added and modified slowly, it's hard to say when it became "new" information.

AAAA
AAAB
AABA
ABBA

When did I go from a string of letters to the name of a rock group? Which of those four mutations "added" that information?

CoHehir · Apr 16, 2003

Who put the 'B' there?

Wait, when did you go from a string of letters to the name of a band? Well, when you wrote ABBA.

The AAAA did not rearrange themselves by chance.

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

hold on here. first of all where the heck did that B come from in the first place? did it just appear and if so how did the four A's which had no experience with the letter B know what to do to add that new information?

seebs · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 08:48 PM mjiracek said this in Post #74

hold on here. first of all where the heck did that B come from in the first place? did it just appear and if so how did the four A's which had no experience with the letter B know what to do to add that new information?

Chance. That's what mutations look like. You have a series of things, and one of them gets copied wrong, and you get something else. Most of the time, it's just an error, and the protein doesn't work, but every so often, it's something different.

More realistically, the chain might be:

AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AA????~~~ <- deleted
AAAA
AAAA
AAAB

But that's what mutations look like; a change in what the code does. If you want, we can get technical on the details, but there's well-understood patterns and categories of errors which occur in mutations, and we know how most of them happen.

seebs · Apr 16, 2003

Today at 08:45 PM CoHehir said this in Post #73

Who put the 'B' there?

Wait, when did you go from a string of letters to the name of a band? Well, when you wrote ABBA.

The AAAA did not rearrange themselves by chance.

So? If you pick random letters long enough, you get band names. Natural selection isn't pure chance; there are strong biases towards some things, and away from others.

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

ok let me throw this at you...
if every human on earth had blonde hair...then one generation of the hair gene was copied wrong somebody would get brown hair?

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

or would they go bald because the whole hair thing got messed up?

mjiracek · Apr 16, 2003

or is it like this...if a car factory was putting cars together and lets say one in every million times it stamped a part wrong or in your words copied the info wrong that eventually it would lead to a better car part?

CoHehir · Apr 16, 2003

Ok. . .pick random letters, you get band names eventually.
I hope this isn't too out of left field. . .where did you get the letters, and why are they necessarily understood?

ðξњℓ◦ζ

There are some characters. They have a form, they are 'proteins.' But they are not understood. So, monkeys typing on a keyboard may write Shakespeare's works, but they need a keyboard with characters that make sense to each other first.

Dr. Dino, a look at an article...

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

HI

Active Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Active Member

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency