Nothing changes in this forum.

[AnotherAtheist]

You didn't answer my question. I asked what would stop a creature evolving that could jump to the moon. Please, answer the question I asked this time.

Easy.

First, what are the sizes of the muscles that would be required to jump to the moon? How large would the creature have to be? Utterly massive.

For a creature of even half that size to exist, there would have to be an ecological niche for that half moon-jumping size to occupy such that the size would be an ecological advantage over smaller creatures. If there is no such niche, then there will be no selection pressure towards that half size, and therefore no evolution.

That is just one such reason. Over and above that, there are maximum sizes that various body plans can grow to due to such things as being able to take in enough oxygen to support metabolism. E.g. this limits the size of insects, but also mammals.

Both of these would stop such a creature evolving. There are going to be many more aspects of plausible ecology and morphology that will stop it. E.g. would the creature have to be so large that its head would stick out into space? How would such a creature survive? Even at half the moon-jumping size.

For you to even ask this question shows that you haven't thought it through.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Easy.

First, what are the sizes of the muscles that would be required to jump to the moon? How large would the creature have to be? Utterly massive.

For a creature of even half that size to exist, there would have to be an ecological niche for that half moon-jumping size to occupy such that the size would be an ecological advantage over smaller creatures. If there is no such niche, then there will be no selection pressure towards that half size, and therefore no evolution.

That is just one such reason. Over and above that, there are maximum sizes that various body plans can grow to due to such things as being able to take in enough oxygen to support metabolism. E.g. this limits the size of insects, but also mammals.

Both of these would stop such a creature evolving. There are going to be many more aspects of plausible ecology and morphology that will stop it. E.g. would the creature have to be so large that its head would stick out into space? How would such a creature survive? Even at half the moon-jumping size.

For you to even ask this question shows that you haven't thought it through.

I was hoping rjs330 would step up and admit there are limiting factors in evolution and accept the error of his claim that a Mississippi-jumping creature is an evolutionary inevitability.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I was hoping rjs330 would step up and admit there are limiting factors in evolution and accept the error of his claim that a Mississippi-jumping creature is an evolutionary inevitability.

Sorry. I missed some context.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A quick search shows 20-30 feet. Long jump records since the early 1900s are 24 feet more more (currently 29 feet), so on a low flow day, an Olympic class long jumper could jump the Mississippi at it's source.

Thanks; I was wary of an attempt to move the goalposts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Easy.

First, what are the sizes of the muscles that would be required to jump to the moon? How large would the creature have to be? Utterly massive.

For a creature of even half that size to exist, there would have to be an ecological niche for that half moon-jumping size to occupy such that the size would be an ecological advantage over smaller creatures. If there is no such niche, then there will be no selection pressure towards that half size, and therefore no evolution.

That is just one such reason. Over and above that, there are maximum sizes that various body plans can grow to due to such things as being able to take in enough oxygen to support metabolism. E.g. this limits the size of insects, but also mammals.

Both of these would stop such a creature evolving. There are going to be many more aspects of plausible ecology and morphology that will stop it. E.g. would the creature have to be so large that its head would stick out into space? How would such a creature survive? Even at half the moon-jumping size.

For you to even ask this question shows that you haven't thought it through.

Yes. The same kind of physics (scaling factors, power-to-weight ratios, etc) prevent an animal evolving to jump the Mississippi (other than close to its source). Evolutionary considerations also militate against such a development.

 

[Phred]

What else do you want?

I want you to be honest. I want you to admit that what you espouse is based upon a very simple basis... You believe the Bible is the end-all, be-all and therefore if anything contradicts it no matter what is wrong. So you work to undermine everything that you see as being against your biblical worldview. Even though there are multitudes of other interpretations of the Bible, not just one. What you do is cherry pick. You find a few scientific things that agree with you and so you say that your version is scientific. Then you find things that don't agree with you so you say those things are not scientific. What you do is distort scientific methods and results to achieve your own ends.

I find this to be against everything you say you're for.

 

[rjs330]

Read the "Wedge" document.

The Wedge Document

Then read (or at least look over--it's a weighty tome) The Institutes of Biblical Law by the late R. J. Rushdooney, which describes the plan for a theocracy.

The Discovery Institute is funded by the Chalcedon Foundation, American Vision and the Council for National Policy, all Christian Reconstructionist organisations

Well I did some research and it's obvious to me that you have believed whatever liberal propeganda has been put out against the Discovery folks. They do not stand for a theocracy as you claim. None of the groups you listed are supporters if a theocracy either. I listened to the videos and read their stuff. None of them are for forcing the bible down peoples throats or demanding everyone follow God. In fact one of the groups flatly say that's really bad to have a government that is theocratic. And one of them says they do not lobby for things. I find your claims to be unfounded.

 

[rjs330]

OK; perhaps you could explain how, according to evolution, that could happen?

I think you have done a bang up job of that yourself by claiming the common ancestor evolved out if the primordial ooze to be able to fly. Just quote any evolutionist and you have your answer.

 

[rjs330]

Given your apparent paucity of understanding of what evolution actually is and what it proposes, this "I know the subject better than you" tack is quite ironically humorous.

There is nothing in evolution that suggests a human could "evolve" to jump across the Mississippi. N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Your not paying attention to yourself. If the common ancestor evolved from the inability to jump a large stream to the ability to jump a large stream it's entirely possible for it to eventually evolve to jump the Mississippi. It went from having no legs to having legs powerful enough to jump a large stream. Eventually through evolution it could after billions of years evolve to jump the Mississippi. It's obvious to me that evolutionists are not understanding their own claims.

 

[rjs330]

You didn't answer my question. I asked what would stop a creature evolving that could jump to the moon. Please, answer the question I asked this time.

If you really believe in evolution you have to believe that's it possible. It's also possible for something to evolve into living in space. Why not right? I mean something evolved from whatever it was into the ability to "breath" water and then evolve into breathing air. What would prevent that thing I to eventually evolving into being able to survive space? You guys crack me up.

You don't even believe your own nonsense.
Whereas we see common design which is obvious and observable, testable and verifiable. Yet not acceptable as science. We'll keep trying though. As someone pointed out it takes a LOT of work to overcome scientific prejudice.

 

[USincognito]

Your not paying attention to yourself. If the common ancestor evolved from the inability to jump a large stream to the ability to jump a large stream it's entirely possible for it to eventually evolve to jump the Mississippi. It went from having no legs to having legs powerful enough to jump a large stream. Eventually through evolution it could after billions of years evolve to jump the Mississippi. It's obvious to me that evolutionists are not understanding their own claims.

I think we've all stopped taking your silly, dishonest comments seriously at this point. How about actually answering Phred's question and then the discussion might actually be able to move forward?

 

[rjs330]

Yes. The same kind of physics (scaling factors, power-to-weight ratios, etc) prevent an animal evolving to jump the Mississippi (other than close to its source). Evolutionary considerations also militate against such a development.

It's funny that you would recognize evolutionary limitations and considerations. Yet would blindly believe that there are none where it seems plausible such as a non breathing common ancestor being able to evolve to "breath" water then eventually breath air. Or one that can grow legs strong enough to jump a large stream where it couldn't before. Incredulous. And it's us creationists who see design in all things are the one thought stupid. It's so obvious yet you and others would rather trust in some unobservable, untestible, unverifiable theory.

Common design is all around us and you refuse to believe. It's just confirmation that Paul was correct.

 

[Speedwell]

Common design is all around us and you refuse to believe. It's just confirmation that Paul was correct.

I believe Paul was right, too, but you just can't prove it with the scientific method, and I think that's what gets up your nose. You can't prove it to people, atheists, Christians and others, who aren't disposed to "believe the Bible."

In fact, I am convinced that is what creationism is all about--restoring the unwarranted political hegemony once enjoyed by Evangelical Protestantism.

But I am also convinced that these discussions are becoming useless. Your last champion is on his knees; if he goes down we'll be fighting it out in the streets, not in chatrooms.

 

[rjs330]

I think we've all stopped taking your silly, dishonest comments seriously at this point. How about actually answering Phred's question and then the discussion might actually be able to move forward?

I did, you just didn't like the answer. You will accept incredulousness within certain limitations. You will accept design and purpose in every observable circumstance but refuse to apply it to nature. You fully believe in science but refuse to follow it's own rules when it come to evolution. Because it's not been ever shown that it's possible. No tests or experiments have ever shown that it possible for something without legs to eventually grow eight or more. Or something to eventually evolve from one thing into something else. As far back as you can possible go you have never found an actual branch. It's all theory, supposition and assumptions. It's all interpretive logic that actually defies logic.

The refusal to see the observable truth is stunning. The great 29 reasons to believe in evolution are actually 29 reasons to believe in common design. Because that's all that can be proven by it. Commonalities. That's it. It's interpreted to mean evolution because that's what you want.

You will fully accept the impossibility of something without legs, lungs eyes etc. growing legs big enough to jump a large stream on land with lungs to breath the air. But are all incredulous over that same thing being able to evolve legs big enough to jump the Mississippi. Oh it's all about us not understanding evolution. Oh we understand all right. It's all hogwash.

I think I am done with this conversation. I may check back now and then to see if someone actually finds an experiment that shows such a thing is actually possible.

 

[rjs330]

I believe Paul was right, too, but you just can't prove it with the scientific method, and I think that's what gets up your nose. You can't prove it to people, atheists, Christians and others, who aren't disposed to "believe the Bible."

In fact, I am convinced that is what creationism is all about--restoring the unwarranted political hegemony once enjoyed by Evangelical Protestantism.

But I am also convinced that these discussions are becoming useless. Your last champion is on his knees; if he goes down we'll be fighting it out in the streets, not in chatrooms.

Common design is proven by scientific methods. Havent you read the 29 evidences for evolution? Well I don't remember the number precisely. If you read that you will only find facts. Those facts are interpreted by science to show evidence of evolution. Those facts are actually evidences of design. That's my interpretation of the facts. It's all about interpretation and assumptions. That's all. And since people refuse to accept the truth yet will be blinded as Paul said. Science is man and man is fallible and man refuses to allow science to see common design. Just like Paul said .
You can't use science to show evolution from a common ancestor either, but they sure believe it anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

Common design is proven by scientific methods. Havent you read the 29 evidences for evolution? Well I don't remember the number precisely. If you read that you will only find facts. Those facts are interpreted by science to show evidence of evolution. Those facts are actually evidences of design. That's my interpretation of the facts. It's all about interpretation and assumptions. That's all. And since people refuse to accept the truth yet will be blinded as Paul said. Science is man and man is fallible and man refuses to allow science to see common design. Just like Paul said .
You can't use science to show evolution from a common ancestor either, but they sure believe it anyway.

And the notion that people can accept the theory of evolution and also see design through faith is anathema to you because it doesn't give you a political edge.

 

[USincognito]

It's funny that you would recognize evolutionary limitations and considerations. Yet would blindly believe that there are none where it seems plausible such as a non breathing common ancestor being able to evolve to "breath" water then eventually breath air. Or one that can grow legs strong enough to jump a large stream where it couldn't before. Incredulous. And it's us creationists who see design in all things are the one thought stupid. It's so obvious yet you and others would rather trust in some unobservable, untestible, unverifiable theory.

Common design is all around us and you refuse to believe. It's just confirmation that Paul was correct.

What is it with your bizarre stream jumping obsession???

 

[rjs330]

And the notion that people can accept the theory of evolution and also see design through faith is anathema to you because it doesn't give you a political edge.

Creationism is not political. Design is not political. Not in and of themselves. The problem is like everything in this country politics is required. How do you think abortion became legal? How do you think evolution came to be taught in school? It was through politics. They had to convince the politicians that it was a valid scientific theory and should be taught. To think that anything in this country doesn't change through politics is niave. Bit it also doesn't mean we demand a theocracy. That has ALWAYS turned out bad. I wouldn't want it.

 

[Aman777]

Yes, I miscounted the days. However, you still said that Adam was created on the third day when he wasn't. Given that you believe in the Bible, or at least in your particular weird interpretation, then I think it's just a bit more telling that you get a day wrong than I do.

I have NEVER said that Adam was "created" on the 3rd Day. Adam was "formed" as the Potter molds clay, physically, on the 3rd Day BEFORE plants herbs and rain. Genesis 2:4-7 Adam was "created" (born again) on the present 6th Day, the Day/Age of Salvation. ALL of mankind lives and dies on the present 6th Day/Age. God has but 7 Days and the 7th is Eternity.

Claim unsupported by the scripture. It's very easy to take The Bible and read 'discoveries' into it post-hoc. Can you show me that anyone thought the Bible said that there was a multiverse before people came up with the idea independently?

You should know that Biblical scholars spend most of their time trying to agree with the traditional religious Theology which does NOT agree with Science and History. ONLY the people of the last days, with the increased Scientific knowledge of our time can possibly understand the Bible. Daniel 12:4

The relationship between life and water is pretty obvious, even to primitive man.

The reason for the announcement of L.U.C.A. was to show the consensus of today's Scientists. Some thought Panspermia, riding in on Comets, and other such assumptions, was what produced life on planet Earth. In 2016, scientists announced their AGREEMENT with what God told us 3k years ago, in Genesis 1:21.

If you wish to post more, could you perhaps find something that the Bible predicted and that people knew that it predicted before science discovered it? If it's just more science discovering stuff, and then people such as you attempting their hardest to then reinterpret the Bible to match, then it's dang unimpressive.

Here are predictions in Genesis:

1. Science will soon learn that we live in a Multiverse.
2. Science or Preachers will soon announce the discovery of the bottom of Adam's firmament in Lake Van, Turkey, which is evidence of life BEFORE the big bang.
3. The discoverer of the firmament will immediately become the richest man on Earth

 

[Speedwell]

Creationism is not political. Design is not political. Not in and of themselves. The problem is like everything in this country politics is required. How do you think abortion became legal? How do you think evolution came to be taught in school? It was through politics. They had to convince the politicians that it was a valid scientific theory and should be taught. To think that anything in this country doesn't change through politics is niave. Bit it also doesn't mean we demand a theocracy. That has ALWAYS turned out bad. I wouldn't want it.

But you want Fundamentalist theology to be taught in school; that's political, too. You're trying (and failing badly) to make it into science to achieve that end.