Just curious. How does the model account how Noah collected over 900,000 presently known species of insects (we are finding hundreds of new species every year) not to mention the conservative estimated 2 to 30 million species that are believed to exist in nature? A very daunting task. Even more daunting would be the determination of sex. Most of these insects have lifespans less than 40 days and many have lifespans less than a day. Many of these need breeding conditions that could not be not be replicated on the Ark.
The question still stands how did the koala and kangaroo make it to Australia. Why do you only find the coqui in Puerto Rico. Why is it that the Galapagos have 4 endemic species (only found on one location) of mockingbirds, 14 endemic species of buntings as well as the flightless cormorant.? Why is the orange crested sunbird endemic to southwest South Africa?
The Ark took 100 years to build, plenty of time for insects to incorporate. I beleive there are about 30 million species of beetle. Did Noah collect the "creeping things" or did they come on their own? I would think insects are the easiest to keep. They would live in the wood and on the animals, in whatever. Like I stated, a representative species for each type.
They had many modes of animal disperion. If an island suddenly appeared now in the middle of the specific, it would only be a matter of time (not thousands of years) before it is populated. The birds on Galapogas, I answered this. Animals spread and diversified. The coqui (a frog?) is a (frog?) so it descended from frogs from the Ark. It became a coqui by microevolution. It is still a frog.
The marsupials are supposed to travel fast or something than placental mammals. I want to look into that one more on my second trip.
The marsupials are supposed to travel fast or something than placental mammals. I want to look into that one more on my second trip.
How did the kangaroo and koala learn and then unlearn to swim? Remember it has been well documented that Asia and Australia were not connected 5-6,000 years ago.
It became a coqui by microevolution. It is still a frog.
You readily concede that microevolution in nature is a given over the course of thousands of years. How is it that you can discount macroevolution given millions? Doesn't microevolution lend credence to the idea of a common ancestor since so many species of within the same family, so many families within the same order and so many orders within the same phylum?
How did the kangaroo and koala learn and then unlearn to swim? Remember it has been well documented that Asia and Australia were not connected 5-6,000 years ago.
You readily concede that microevolution in nature is a given over the course of thousands of years. How is it that you can discount macroevolution given millions? Doesn't microevolution lend credence to the idea of a common ancestor since so many species of within the same family, so many families within the same order and so many orders within the same phylum?
The continents split, according to this museum, after the flood, there was plenty of time for animals to disperse.
Don't overestimate the time it takes for microevolution to occur. It can happen fast. Within your lifetime perhaps.
Phylum, orders, are man-made.
The Bible say "kind". So bears are a kind, giraffes are a kind, etc. These "kind" can diversify, like people can, but they are all of the same "kind". Like the coqui, it has diversified from its ancestors, but is still of the same kind. Frogs.
Kingdom, Phylum and Order are observed characteristics of all life.
The Bible say "kind". So bears are a kind, giraffes are a kind, etc. These "kind" can diversify, like people can, but they are all of the same "kind". Like the coqui, it has diversified from its ancestors, but is still of the same kind. Frogs.
So you are using a literal interpretation of Genesis as your a priori premise? How scientific is that?
The continents split, according to this museum, after the flood, there was plenty of time for animals to disperse
.
I refer you again to the table showing the speed of tectonic plate movement. Centimeters per year x 5-6K years doesn't add up to allow for the Asia and Australia to be contiguous.
Kingdom, Phylum and Order are observed characteristics of all life.
So you are using a literal interpretation of Genesis as your a priori premise? How scientific is that?
.
I refer you again to the table showing the speed of tectonic plate movement. Centimeters per year x 5-6K years doesn't add up to allow for the Asia and Australia to be contiguous.
I say kind because that is what the museum presented. They were kinda making it synonymous with family. Remember the classification system is constantly changing, adding suborders, supra phyla etc. Even Kingdoms are in dispute. The evolutionists even like to think of it as a continuum. Even they don't consider the classification system as final, just a little helpful.
The plate movement is the rate now. If I tell you I drove from here to there, 60 miles away, in 60 minutes, do you assume that I constantly drove 60 mph from start to finish? No, I accelerated and decelerated, above and below 60 mph.
I say kind because that is what the museum presented. They were kinda making it synonymous with family.
Kinda presumptive on their part, isn't it?
The plate movement is the rate now. If I tell you I drove from here to there, 60 miles away, in 60 minutes, do you assume that I constantly drove 60 mph from start to finish? No, I accelerated and decelerated, above and below 60 mph.
What evidence do they show to account for such a dramatic acceleration at the time of the Flood?
((shaking my head after reading the 'what if' challenging posts by Oenophile, and the 'scientific' ((gag)) answers by Bolshevik))
And the Creationists say that the theory of Evolution sounds to incredulous (as opposed to credible) to be true. I mean, look at the answers that endeavor to show (in such a comical fashion) how it could be possible for the young earth, 6 day, Noah's flood version of biblical creation could actually and viably occur.
... And yes Virginia, I said, and meant, comical!
And its topped off by having it explained (as tho' it were viable) by a science teacher! ... ROFLMAO!! ... Dr. Hovind, move over dude! You have met your match. :lol:
... this is too much! Thanks for the laugh Bolshevik.
What evidence do they show to account for such a dramatic acceleration at the time of the Flood?
I don't think it is presumptuous. They group animals together that are alike, esp if they can breed together. Like with the swine mentioned earlier, it simplified things. All animals belong under a kind. How's it less scientific than Linnaean taxonomy? I like it. Just because some scientists do things one way, doesn't mean the rest have to. Linnaean taxonomy has its limits, since deciding how to distinguish how organisms are different can get hairy at times. Grouping animals into simple those they can or could possibly breed with, seems to help avoid gray areas. (for now at least). Don't make the mistake of deciding that because it doesn't flow exactly with the previous way of thinking that it is wrong. Neither way is wrong or right, just different.
I haven't put my head into the geology so much. They did spend a good amount of time showing video of actual events that demonstrate that geological processes once thought to take a long time (i.e. thousands/millions of years) can actually happen very rapidly (hours or days). Another thing to look at more next time.
But if the anthropoid apes are related by evolutionary descent, that strikes a bit too close to home for the creationists; after all, if chimps and gorillas are one "kind" and share over 95% of their DNA, what then are we to make of human beings, who share over 98% of their genetic code with chimps? The conclusion that apes and humans would then constitute (on the basis of morphological similarity) a single "created kind", and that therefore apes and humans would be evolutionary variations of each other, is flatly unacceptable to the creationists. After all, the very core of their opposition to evolution is the supposed divine origin of human beings. Rather than admit that humans are just an evolutionary variant of the ape "kind", the creationists instead carefully draw their boundaries to avoid that possibility.
There is believed to be a gorilla-chimp hybrid. Skulls of these larger apes come from the Congo. If chimps are genetically more like humans then gorillas, but can breed with gorillas, should they be able to breed with humans? If so, that would settle some things.
Unfortuately, all too often a discussion like this devolves into a raw, emotionally charged gladiatorial combat spectacle between differing points of view.
Bolshevik, far from having "met his match" with me, is the academically trained scientist at the post graduate level and I am not. My degree is in the humanities. Although I am not ready to accept much of what he presents as true but what he does argue is usually researched and thought provoking. I simply am engaging a form of socratic dialogue (as best I understand it) to bring focus on some problems that arise from accepting the literal Creation and Flood accounts from Genesis as actual events.
The metaphysical implications surrounding this topic are far reaching. However, we should be able to ignore the dogmatic line in the sand and examine the evidence in the cool, light of day without resorting to questioning each others sanity or intelligence which serves no purpose in a quest for understanding.
In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a "polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids--but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other through polyploidy.
For the creationists to consider these two virtually identical frogs as being of different "kinds" would be absurd on the face of it, since they are so alike they can be distinguished only in the lab, and they obviously share evolutionary descent. So naturally, the creationists would like to lump these two species together as "variations" within one "created kind". But there is a problem for the creationists--the two Hyla species do not, and, because of their chromosomal differences, cannot, interbreed. Not only do they not produce any fertile offspring--they are incapable of producing any offspring at all. The same problem arises in connection with plants--the polyploid descendents of particular plants can no longer produce viable seeds with the parent stock, and thus cannot produce any offspring with the parent species. Therefore, the creationist, using the criterion of "interbreeding", must conclude that the two are different "kinds", even though one is obviously a descendent of the other (polyploid plants have been successfully produced and bred in the laboratory--in fact many of our food crops are polyploid descendents of corn and wheat plants which can no longer interbreed with the parent stock).
I think you're putting too much stock in breeding.
Personally, I don't see how it plays any role. Just b/c two animals/plants set of genes have changed to the point that they are incompatible breeding with each other doesn't prove or disprove anything. At the most it shows that their genes have only diverged enough to prevent the incompatibility.
I think you're putting too much stock in breeding.
Personally, I don't see how it plays any role. Just b/c two animals/plants set of genes have changed to the point that they are incompatible breeding with each other doesn't prove or disprove anything. At the most it shows that their genes have only diverged enough to prevent the incompatibility.
No mechanism has been established to account for macroevolution. It is simply believed that it happened. They are searching for the evidence. They assemble all new findings so as to fit under the theory. This assumed theory is applied to interpret human behavior, and therefore areas outside of the hard sciences. It makes me wonder what the evolutionists are so adamantly defensive, and offensive about.
What the creationist have is a workable model from the same facts evolutionists have. Those frogs are still frogs. It follows the creationist model. All the fossils and species we see can be interpreted under the creationist model, or, in a different way, under evolution theory. Creationists have God, the evolutionists have Father Time to fit whatever explanation they want.
As far as putting to much stock in breeding, I said I was focusing on the breeding and kinds for now. I took that idea I learned last weak and am applying it. Me, I generally like to look at one theory at a time, get comfortable with it, and move on to the next.
I took the time to look up what you're referring to with macro-evolution. If you're referring to a jump from one species to another in a relative short amount of time, no I don't see that and everything I've studied would not suggest it. All evolution is done in minor steps, with the minor changes in the genes being beneficial to survival (most are not and the change dies out). Major change is achieved by many incremental changes, all being beneficial to survival.
If you really want a perspective on it, read Dawkin's book - The Selfish Gene. No macro-evolution required. Don't worry, you won't end up having to go to an evolution fellowship meeting 2 - 3 times a week and send him 15% of your income. The worst that will happen is that you wasted a few hours of your time. ;)
But sir. Shall you not prove that the flying Spaghetti Monster exists? Does he exists simply because you have the evidence of the (sauce and meatball covered) spaghetti on your plate? .... Oh, it isn't there any longer as you just devoured it, I see.
Or does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist simply because you took faith in those Chef Boy-ar-Dee commercials you have seen as a child?
... This does throw the evolutionary theory into a curveball, doesn't it?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
13
17
74
Popular Days
Jul 6
33
Jul 3
27
Jul 5
18
Jul 4
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 16 posts
oenophile 13 posts
GarthP2000 17 posts
Bolshevik 74 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2007
33 posts
Jul 3 2007
27 posts
Jul 5 2007
18 posts
Jul 4 2007
17 posts
Bolshevik
The Ark took 100 years to build, plenty of time for insects to incorporate. I beleive there are about 30 million species of beetle. Did Noah collect the "creeping things" or did they come on their own? I would think insects are the easiest to keep. They would live in the wood and on the animals, in whatever. Like I stated, a representative species for each type.
They had many modes of animal disperion. If an island suddenly appeared now in the middle of the specific, it would only be a matter of time (not thousands of years) before it is populated. The birds on Galapogas, I answered this. Animals spread and diversified. The coqui (a frog?) is a (frog?) so it descended from frogs from the Ark. It became a coqui by microevolution. It is still a frog.
The marsupials are supposed to travel fast or something than placental mammals. I want to look into that one more on my second trip.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
You readily concede that microevolution in nature is a given over the course of thousands of years. How is it that you can discount macroevolution given millions? Doesn't microevolution lend credence to the idea of a common ancestor since so many species of within the same family, so many families within the same order and so many orders within the same phylum?
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The continents split, according to this museum, after the flood, there was plenty of time for animals to disperse.
Don't overestimate the time it takes for microevolution to occur. It can happen fast. Within your lifetime perhaps.
Phylum, orders, are man-made.
The Bible say "kind". So bears are a kind, giraffes are a kind, etc. These "kind" can diversify, like people can, but they are all of the same "kind". Like the coqui, it has diversified from its ancestors, but is still of the same kind. Frogs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
So you are using a literal interpretation of Genesis as your a priori premise? How scientific is that?
.I refer you again to the table showing the speed of tectonic plate movement. Centimeters per year x 5-6K years doesn't add up to allow for the Asia and Australia to be contiguous.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
hi robin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I say kind because that is what the museum presented. They were kinda making it synonymous with family. Remember the classification system is constantly changing, adding suborders, supra phyla etc. Even Kingdoms are in dispute. The evolutionists even like to think of it as a continuum. Even they don't consider the classification system as final, just a little helpful.
The plate movement is the rate now. If I tell you I drove from here to there, 60 miles away, in 60 minutes, do you assume that I constantly drove 60 mph from start to finish? No, I accelerated and decelerated, above and below 60 mph.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
What evidence do they show to account for such a dramatic acceleration at the time of the Flood?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
((shaking my head after reading the 'what if' challenging posts by Oenophile, and the 'scientific' ((gag))
answers by Bolshevik))
And the Creationists say that the theory of Evolution sounds to incredulous (as opposed to credible) to be true. I mean, look at the answers that endeavor to show (in such a comical fashion) how it could be possible for the young earth, 6 day, Noah's flood version of biblical creation could actually and viably occur.
... And yes Virginia, I said, and meant, comical!
And its topped off by having it explained (as tho' it were viable) by a science teacher! ... ROFLMAO!! ... Dr. Hovind, move over dude! You have met your match. :lol:
... this is too much!
Thanks for the laugh Bolshevik.
((still shaking my head))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't think it is presumptuous. They group animals together that are alike, esp if they can breed together. Like with the swine mentioned earlier, it simplified things. All animals belong under a kind. How's it less scientific than Linnaean taxonomy? I like it. Just because some scientists do things one way, doesn't mean the rest have to. Linnaean taxonomy has its limits, since deciding how to distinguish how organisms are different can get hairy at times. Grouping animals into simple those they can or could possibly breed with, seems to help avoid gray areas. (for now at least). Don't make the mistake of deciding that because it doesn't flow exactly with the previous way of thinking that it is wrong. Neither way is wrong or right, just different.
I haven't put my head into the geology so much. They did spend a good amount of time showing video of actual events that demonstrate that geological processes once thought to take a long time (i.e. thousands/millions of years) can actually happen very rapidly (hours or days). Another thing to look at more next time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Kind of old (1995) but good information on the creationist's "kind" theory:
CREATION "SCIENCE" AND THE GENESIS "KINDS"
And on Noah's flood:
CAN NOAH'S FLOOD ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGIC AND FOSIL RECORD?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I wonder if the opposum has ever been bred with one of the Australian marsupials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoll
That would be more interesting than the cama (camel + llama)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
(from post #111)
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/kinds.htm
There is believed to be a gorilla-chimp hybrid. Skulls of these larger apes come from the Congo. If chimps are genetically more like humans then gorillas, but can breed with gorillas, should they be able to breed with humans? If so, that would settle some things.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If the Earth was never perfect, could it ever be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Unfortuately, all too often a discussion like this devolves into a raw, emotionally charged gladiatorial combat spectacle between differing points of view.
Bolshevik, far from having "met his match" with me, is the academically trained scientist at the post graduate level and I am not. My degree is in the humanities. Although I am not ready to accept much of what he presents as true but what he does argue is usually researched and thought provoking. I simply am engaging a form of socratic dialogue (as best I understand it) to bring focus on some problems that arise from accepting the literal Creation and Flood accounts from Genesis as actual events.
The metaphysical implications surrounding this topic are far reaching. However, we should be able to ignore the dogmatic line in the sand and examine the evidence in the cool, light of day without resorting to questioning each others sanity or intelligence which serves no purpose in a quest for understanding.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I think you're putting too much stock in breeding.
Personally, I don't see how it plays any role. Just b/c two animals/plants set of genes have changed to the point that they are incompatible breeding with each other doesn't prove or disprove anything. At the most it shows that their genes have only diverged enough to prevent the incompatibility.
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I, for one, haven't a clue what the answer is.
I can tell you,though, that as a teenager, I dated a few gals who ACTED like apes.(and looked like chimps!)
They probably feel the same way about me.
AHH.--- To be young again.-----Sigh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No mechanism has been established to account for macroevolution. It is simply believed that it happened. They are searching for the evidence. They assemble all new findings so as to fit under the theory. This assumed theory is applied to interpret human behavior, and therefore areas outside of the hard sciences. It makes me wonder what the evolutionists are so adamantly defensive, and offensive about.
What the creationist have is a workable model from the same facts evolutionists have. Those frogs are still frogs. It follows the creationist model. All the fossils and species we see can be interpreted under the creationist model, or, in a different way, under evolution theory. Creationists have God, the evolutionists have Father Time to fit whatever explanation they want.
As far as putting to much stock in breeding, I said I was focusing on the breeding and kinds for now. I took that idea I learned last weak and am applying it. Me, I generally like to look at one theory at a time, get comfortable with it, and move on to the next.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I took the time to look up what you're referring to with macro-evolution. If you're referring to a jump from one species to another in a relative short amount of time, no I don't see that and everything I've studied would not suggest it. All evolution is done in minor steps, with the minor changes in the genes being beneficial to survival (most are not and the change dies out). Major change is achieved by many incremental changes, all being beneficial to survival.
If you really want a perspective on it, read Dawkin's book - The Selfish Gene. No macro-evolution required. Don't worry, you won't end up having to go to an evolution fellowship meeting 2 - 3 times a week and send him 15% of your income. The worst that will happen is that you wasted a few hours of your time. ;)
I think this sums up this thread rather well:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!
Why don't you just start a thread on "memes"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But sir. Shall you not prove that the flying Spaghetti Monster exists? Does he exists simply because you have the evidence of the (sauce and meatball covered) spaghetti on your plate? .... Oh, it isn't there any longer as you just devoured it, I see.
Or does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist simply because you took faith in those Chef Boy-ar-Dee commercials you have seen as a child?
... This does throw the evolutionary theory into a curveball, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was touched by his oooie goodness . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.grisda.org/origins/22047.htm
There is uncertainty in isotope-dating. Even when matching with tree-rings. Trees can produce multiple rings in a single season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K.,
So how much larger a percent should one include in the "plus or minus" of the margin of error of isotope dating?
Or should we just disregard it completely because it's not accurate enough?
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.