Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Zealot]

Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Osweld
Apes have evolved in the jungles and forests of the planet, and are thus adapted to climbing trees and living in a forested enviroment, humans evolved in the open planes and savannahs and are thus adapted to that enviroment.

But why are men the only "animal" who have fat as a heat-retaining system, as do fish, while all other savanah animals have fur?

Originally posted by Osweld
The fact that there are humans and apes - or any other example of bio-diversity - only supports evolution.

Where's the evidence to support that? You consider that the fauna adapted itself to the existing flora, but I ask myself why did the flora change in the first place?
Where's the evidence that the flora had the need to "evolve" into such diversity?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
This is exactly what the fossil record shows (except that there was gradual development, not a "given time" when it suddenly happened).

No, they don't, otherwise there wouldn't be any apes left. This is just like the idea that the son's of athletic champions would be champions as well. Or that the Giraffe neck would grow to reach higher and tastier leaves. Bah.

[Jack the Bodiless]

CyberShy:

but now I have to rebute it, I guess. hmmmmmmmmm.

your 'take the time' example which saves much time in the end expects that the dices ignore everytime they didn't roll 6. In that case 6000000 rolls will conclude indeed in 1000000 6's, 1000000 5's....... etc. etc. etc. (might be one more or less )

But what if we say for example that every time you trow a 5 you have to start all over............ ? Like an organism which mutates very wrong has no change to survive (natural selection)

If you DID have to start all over again after every bad mutation, then that would be a huge problem: evolution would be impossible.

But you don't. Even if a creature gets a bad mutation and dies, it will usually have brothers and sisters who didn't get the mutation. And there might be cousins and other more distant relatives to carry on. Each will have inherited the good mutations from earlier generations, and the bad ones will have died out.

Furthermore, if the creature reproduces sexually, there will be combinations of genes. If two separate creatures of the same species each gets a good mutation, they might meet and breed, and some of their offspring might inherit both. On average, these will prevail over those which lack those traits.

As for Noah's Ark: people are always finding Noah's Ark on Ararat, and it's always just another rock formation.

it is ?
I'm sure that hapened many times indeed. But wood is wood.

There are wooden shacks on Ararat. People carry wood up there to build shelters. Ironically, a "piece of the Ark" could be a piece of a shelter built by an earlier expedition to find the Ark.

last time I checked the evolution theory teached us that both apes and and humans share the same precessors. But pherhaps the evolution theory has evolved again last week.

MODERN apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor. But that ancestor would still be an "ape".

[Guynemer]

As I said, willful ignorance...

We'd have better luck arguing with a brick wall, folks. These guys are just flat-out ignoring what we're saying.

[General Ludd]

Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Zealot


But why are men the only "animal" who have fat as a heat-retaining system, as do fish, while all other savanah animals have fur?

Well, this is a whole other debate really - I won't get into it here, because it's not the right thread, and frankly I don't know a whole lot about the subject, anyways. But it's a question of where, and exactly how humans evolved.

I'd suggest looking into the aquatic ape theory if you want to hear a (in my opinion) more plausible theory then the commonly excepted one of apes moving to the savanah.

[General Ludd]

Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Zealot
Where's the evidence to support that? You consider that the fauna adapted itself to the existing flora, but I ask myself why did the flora change in the first place?
Where's the evidence that the flora had the need to "evolve" into such diversity?

Don't seperate flora from fauna, they are interwined and evolve together, plants rely on animals just as much as animals rely on plants. I don't know much about botany though, so i can not give any knowledgeble examples of why or how plants change, but an obvious reason why they do is climate and enviroment changes, which includes the changes of the other life forms in their eco-system.

[Zealot]

Re: Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Osweld
I'd suggest looking into the aquatic ape theory if you want to hear a (in my opinion) more plausible theory then the commonly excepted one of apes moving to the savanah.

Of course I've heard about the aquatic simian theory! It's driving anthropologists nuts! Why do you think I mentioned it?

This is just one point why the theory of evolution is just a "theory". You evolutionists go round and round, trying to find out where did man come from... You speculate, and speculate, but still you don't want to see how creationists use science to rebut your theories, rejecting absolutely any "blasphemy" that Life could have been created by a God...

Oh well, life goes on...

[General Ludd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Zealot
Of course I've heard about the aquatic simian theory! It's driving anthropologists nuts! Why do you think I mentioned it?

I don't know, but I'm guessing that it was some sort of failed attempt at baiting me into something.

This is just one point why the theory of evolution is just a "theory".

Erm... you've been trying to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory? I have some bad news for you....

You evolutionists go round and round, trying to find out where did man come from... You speculate, and speculate

Well that is the idea of science, a search for answers.

but still you don't want to see how creationists use science to rebut your theories

What do you mean by 'rebut'? disproving an opposing theory does not make yours correct - and if you use science to disprove it, that shows the merit of science, doesn't it?

rejecting absolutely any (suggestion) that Life could have been created by a God..

First of all - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

And, It's not that it's impossible - it's just that no one ever gives any scientific theory or evidence behind it, and just says "it's the way it is". It's deffinately not the most plausible theory - not that it matters anyways, since most people who believe in it generally consider it to be an absolute and undeniable fact of the universe which is not open to questioning.





I get the feeling that you are saying science is wrong because it does not share the same narrow and close mindness that (for lack of a better term) your beliefs hold.

And that for some reason you have the idea that the only thing required to prove your theory is to disprove the opposing theory - that most certainly is not the case. I'll make an example of this flawed logic for you: There are two men; One man believes potatoes to be stones, the other believes them to be fruit. The man who believes potatoes to be fruit splits one open and proves that they are not stones. Does this make potatoes a fruit?

[Dauphin]

The thought I had that lead me to accept that as, Guynemer said, prior untested mutations had occured in those experiments was: What causes changes in the bio-diversity of a species?

I could only come up with two factors - mutations within a species can increase it, natural selection can decrease. If you prove natural selection, which many experiments do, then you have to have a counter mechanism to prevent irrevocable specialisation.

[Zealot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Osweld
I don't know, but I'm guessing that it was some sort of failed attempt at baiting me into something.

I'm not insulting you in any way; at least I don't intent to.

Originally posted by Osweld
Erm... you've been trying to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory? I have some bad news for you....

Osweld, no you don't...

Originally posted by Osweld
Well that is the idea of science, a search for answers.

Wich I completely agree! BTW, did you start searching for answers already?

Originally posted by Osweld
What do you mean by 'rebut'? disproving an opposing theory does not make yours correct - and if you use science to disprove it, that shows the merit of science, doesn't it?

Absolutely! Where do you think I get my arguments? It's really exaustive to post in threads like these. And I have self-esteem, you know? I wouldn't argue a thing if I didn't have any proof of what I say.

Originally posted by Osweld
First of all - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

And, It's not that it's impossible - it's just that no one ever gives any scientific theory or evidence behind it, and just says "it's the way it is". It's deffinately not the most plausible theory - not that it matters anyways, since most people who believe in it generally consider it to be an absolute and undeniable fact of the universe which is not open to questioning.

Osweld, let me tell you something. There are several people who do consider life began with a sparkle in an organic soup, and that an amoeba was suddenly formed, and that millions of years later, man appeared. It's against this what I've been talking about. I studied what could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible. And that's why there hasn't been any successful experiment on that field.

Originally posted by Osweld
I get the feeling that you are saying science is wrong because it does not share the same narrow and close mindness that (for lack of a better term) your beliefs hold.

And that for some reason you have the idea that the only thing required to prove your theory is to disprove the opposing theory - that most certainly is not the case. I'll make an example of this flawed logic for you: There are two men; One man believes potatoes to be stones, the other believes them to be fruit. The man who believes potatoes to be fruit splits one open and proves that they are not stones. Does this make potatoes a fruit?

Nice example of the fruit, but I'm always open minded about scientific facts. And the theory of evolution is waaaay too far away to stop being a theory. That's what I (and others) have been talking about in this thread.

I hope I have cleared you oppinion about me.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The thought I had that lead me to accept that as, Guynemer said, prior untested mutations had occured in those experiments was: What causes changes in the bio-diversity of a species?

I could only come up with two factors - mutations within a species can increase it, natural selection can decrease. If you prove natural selection, which many experiments do, then you have to have a counter mechanism to prevent irrevocable specialisation.

Nice thought Big Crunch!

[Dauphin]

. It's against this what I've been talking about. I studied what could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible. And that's why there hasn't been any successful experiment on that field.

I wouldn't be surprised if panspermia was a more likely source of life on Earth than the primordial soup though.

[ranskaldan]

AAAARRRGH

I have the impression that a lot of people here don't have the faintest idea of what evolution is, whether or not they believe in it.

What Evolution Isn't:

"Humans evolved from chimpanzees/monkeys."
None of todays species ever, EVER evolved from each other. They all are evolved from common ancestors.

"Early giraffes strained their necks in reaching for the trees." OR
"People in hotter countries are darker because they got tanned so much."
and my favorite:
"If you look at the sun too much, your eyes will mutate"
Straining your neck will make it longer. Sitting under the sun will tan you. Looking at the sun will burn your eyes.
However, NONE of these features are EVER passed to your offspring, because none of them has affected your GENES. Thus these are not part of evolution.
People in hotter countries are darker, and giraffes have longer necks for a different reason.

"Evolution is just a theory."
Great, so is gravity. Your point being?

"Darwin himself recanted evolution."
Mmm, firstly, that isn't true.
Secondly, even if that were, it wouldn't matter a single bit to modern science.

"A lot of PhD's are against evolution."
Even more PhD's are for evolution. A lot lot more.

"Evolution is a strive for perfection. Thus, if evolution is true, all organisms will be perfectly formed organisms, like human beings. There won't be flatworms or slugs or rhesus monkeys."
Grrrrr! Evolution isn't a strive for 'perfection'. Evolution is adapting to whatever the environment offers. If the environment doesn't call for much improvement on the anatomy of the slug, then it will remain a slug for the next billion years. If the environment doesn't call for the rhesus monkey population to evolve that much intelligence, then it won't.

In fact, if a nuclear war suddenly happened (or some other cataclysmic event) and the result is an environment that is so dangerous that curiosity, intelligence and inquisitiveness is punished by death, then whatever human populations remain will evolve stupidity to fit the environment.

This is why there are monkeys, chimps and people in this world. They lived in different habitats and evolved to fit them.


Now, finally, what evolution is:

Firstly, beneficial mutation. Mutation, by the way, is a change in genes. Because mutation is totally random, most of the time it will be horrid. However, sometimes, it will be good. This, as creationists love to point out, is very very very rare. Unfortunately for them, it is not as rare as they want it to be.

Secondly, natural selection. Because mutation creates variation, the tough, demanding environment will trim off the less adaptable traits. Thus, the entire genetic makeup of the population will slowly shift, in the direction of what the environment demands. This is not only reasonable, there is absolutely no reason why this wouldn't happen.

That's all there is to it. A beneficial mutation step which is not as rare as you think, and the natural selection step which is totally inevitable.

There are no neck-stretching exercises for giraffes involved. That is a misconception commonly used by creationists to attack "evolution".

[General Ludd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Zealot
Osweld, let me tell you something. There are several people who do consider life began with a sparkle in an organic soup, and that an amoeba was suddenly formed, and that millions of years later, man appeared. It's against this what I've been talking about. I studied what could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible. And that's why there hasn't been any successful experiment on that field.

I think that all of the theories on the origin of life or the universe are impossible. Creationism for example: So you have a god, who created everything, that's nice and simple and explains everything... except from where this god came from, what it is, and how it came to be. Thus you are still left with the same essential question. Besides, most of the theories are essentially the same, they all revolve around some sort of amazingly improbable or miraculous event happening.

Unless we are talking about life on earth, in specific. In which case, I don't think it really matters. Either the life developed here, or it developed somewhere else and came here - you are left with the same essential question, either way.



I don't think it's impossible that life was created out of the matter of the universe, rather then put together by... er... what exactly could put it together with out being alive itself? Of course, that is no more of a paradox then the question of how the universe (and thus the matter required for spontaneous creation of life) was created in the first place.

I hope I have cleared you oppinion about me.

Sorry, like I said earlier I haven't been following this thread... and I made assumptions about your argument that don't seem to be true.

[Dauphin]

If the environment doesn't call for the rhesus monkey population to evolve that much intelligence, then it won't. .

In that case, have scientist discovered what the benefit of intelligence was in the human species habitat?

It must have been very beneficial to be intelligent to make up for the huge resource requirements placed upon the species due to it.