-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.
The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.
Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.
The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!
A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?
Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.
Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.
The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.
Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:
The human eye is not irreducibly complex
Using the word "perfect" got me into a lot of trouble. :oops: Either way, It's still very well "planned".
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.
Thank you. I'm #2 in my high school class. :proud:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.
But, there's no evidence disproven my theory either. Has the comet thing been proven?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.
Cool. Atleast that's concrete evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!
I think there was a layer of water covering the Earth, which protected the people from the Sun's damaging ultraviolet and all that, which explains their long life. It evaporated it and God either got rid of it or sent it somewhere. 40 days, yup, it says in the bible that the water fell like a giant sheet over the Earth, destroying everything, but God has his hand on the boat and protected it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?
It was large! Yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.
Oh, alright. I thought I was up to something. Dang!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.
But they are simliar, more similar then a mammal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
~:smoking:
:shakehands:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
it works, but it is a mess.
The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.
That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.
Natural selection IS evolution!
I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).
concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.
It's not even that. In the clock analogy, modern humans (Homo Sapiens) have existed for about two seconds. Early cave paintings date to the equivalent of 0.6 seconds ago. In short, we really haven't been around that long.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
it works, but it is a mess.
The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.
That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.
Natural selection IS evolution!
I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).
concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.
~:smoking:
I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.
If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.
Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.
But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.
Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.
What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype
Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.
Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
But, there's no evidence disproven my theory either. Has the comet thing been proven?
I believe the crater that forms the Gulf of Mexico has been dated to be approximately 65 million years old, which corresponds with the decline of the dinosaurs and was caused by a meteor impact. That doesn't definitively prove it, but is definitely evidence in favour of being at least a partial cause.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.
Whoops! My bad!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.
As you say, natural selection is small changes in a direction based on the environment.
And a small change in one direction over a long timeframe leads to a large change.
Some small mutations can have a massive effect on an organism. For example, if a STOP codon is removed, the DNA is read past a certain point, which can lead to many new protiens being created. Depending on what they are the result can be startling e.g. Albinos.
Or nothing may be seen on looking. Lots of mutations to the "junk" DNA can do nothing (although the term "junk" is being debated as it might be that we just don't know the function yet). Or there may be 5 copies of a gene and the chance stops one from working, so the other 4 just plough on.
Anyway, it's bloody late, and I'm going to have to turn in. c ya later :shakehands:
~:smoking:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.
Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.
But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.
Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.
What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype
Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.
Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.
~:smoking:
But, it's more conclusive then simply saying it. As far as the sabertooths and mammoths go.
Concerning the flood and it's multiple appearances. That just increases the possibility of it being true, does it not? I'm guessing he wanted to keep it all natural, as far as killing goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles
I believe the crater that forms the Gulf of Mexico has been dated to be approximately 65 million years old, which corresponds with the decline of the dinosaurs and was caused by a meteor impact. That doesn't definitively prove it, but is definitely evidence in favour of being at
least a partial cause.
It's possible.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Whoops! My bad!!
As you say, natural selection is small changes in a direction based on the environment.
And a small change in one direction over a long timeframe leads to a large change.
Some small mutations can have a massive effect on an organism. For example, if a STOP codon is removed, the DNA is read past a certain point, which can lead to many new protiens being created. Depending on what they are the result can be startling e.g. Albinos.
Or nothing may be seen on looking. Lots of mutations to the "junk" DNA can do nothing (although the term "junk" is being debated as it might be that we just don't know the function yet). Or there may be 5 copies of a gene and the chance stops one from working, so the other 4 just plough on.
Anyway, it's bloody late, and I'm going to have to turn in. c ya later :shakehands:
~:smoking:
I enjoyed talking with you, I hope you will think about what I have said, about Creationism and Christianity, as you know I will always think about the facts of science and Evolution.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Just a statement not having any direct link to recent discussion:
Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory. This is because the explosion caused changes and started life and all that. If the Big Bang Theory was real, the number 1 unanswered question for that would be, where did the matter of the Big Bang come from? That's the hugest problem with that stupid theory. The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same. Just think about it, it doesn't matter if you believe in the seven day creation, only ponder the question. Where did the matter come from? Remember that God loves you, and wants you to accept him so you can be with him for all eternity in Heaven.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.
The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.
Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.
The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!
A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?
Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.
Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.
The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"
First, there were not millions of animals. Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 16,000 sheep-size animals, at the most, would have been on board. This number could have been as low as 2000 if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the family level of modern animal classification. These numbers include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer that a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals! The remainder would be used for food and storage.
The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=28[
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.
Actually I was agreeing that God changes people, and those miricles are hard to dispute.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory. This is because the explosion caused changes and started life and all that. If the Big Bang Theory was real, the number 1 unanswered question for that would be, where did the matter of the Big Bang come from? That's the hugest problem with that stupid theory. The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same. Just think about it, it doesn't matter if you believe in the seven day creation, only ponder the question. Where did the matter come from? Remember that God loves you, and wants you to accept him so you can be with him for all eternity in Heaven.
Evolution and the Big Bang theory are separate ideas. One is to explain how life became so diverse, the other how the universe came into being. That matter and life exist is certain. Evolution only tries to explain what happened to life once it came into existence. Whether we can explain where the matter came from is irrelevant to (biological) evolution.
Also, it is a mistake to say that just because we're not sure where matter came from then it must have come from a god of some sort.
P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though..
:embarassed: :embarassed: I will have to give you that round. I have to admit, I'm not the best speller. :dizzy2: :book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish..
The caps locked micro-evolution post was sarcasm. Go back and read post 181 very carefully. I was making fun of those who miss the point of some posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Your links include people saying that what the bible is true because it says so and hence everything is wrong. I just put it in simple terms so that you might finally after a long time get the point.
I agree that this line of reasoning is week. But have you honestly browsed web sites like http://www.icr.org/? Really, all thread-debating-becasue-its-a-blast-to-spout-our-opinions aside, have you looked at what Creation Science has uncovered that the main stream media is avoiding? Really? Give me an honest answer. Have you tried to take what they are saying and debunk it? I'm not talking about "The Bible is true because it says so" kind of statements, I'm talking about the actual science that is being published, the discoveries that fly in the face of evolution.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?
I hate repeating myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
That is on post #222 my friend.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Also, it is a mistake to say that just because we're not sure where matter came from then it must have come from a god of some sort.
Science is about drawing conclusions from existing data. The existing data says, something can not come from nothing. So, concerning the quesiton of matter, the only logical answer is God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?
Why not take six seconds to create everything? I think the six day work, one day rest, was an example of how we should live. Work-aholics usually live unhealthy lives. How awesome would that be if God was thinking of us when he decided to work six and rest one?:2thumbsup:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Science is about drawing conclusions from existing data. The existing data says, something can not come from nothing. So, concerning the quesiton of matter, the only logical answer is God.
Hardly - absence of a definite theory at the present time is no reason to suppose that the only possible answer is something supernatural. The Greeks had no idea what could naturally cause lightning, so they assumed that it had to be supernatural (the weapons of Zeus). Our current knowledge about lightning shows how unwise it is to assume that where no current theory exists, the only possible answer is supernatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Why not take six seconds to create everything? I think the six day work, one day rest, was an example of how we should live. Work-aholics usually live unhealthy lives. How awesome would that be if God was thinking of us when he decided to work six and rest one?:2thumbsup:
Fair enough. My question was to do with the word 'rest'. To me 'rest' implies that creating the universe was tiring. I suppose that there could be other meanings to the word rest that wouldn't imply that it was tiring.
Well, it's getting late over here and I'm going to bed. Goodnight all.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: stop crossroad :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: it hurts too much:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?
I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: stop crossroad :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: it hurts too much:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?
I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?.
Gah!!! Gah!!! Gah!!! Please pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Do you not know what the word species means? Ok, maybe I should have said "a canine will always be a canine" when I was talking about species never changing into other species. I also said, I believed in micro-evolution. Dog breeders do it all the time. They create new breeds of canine, but they will always be canines. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Maybe beating my head against this wall has caused me to be the only one hearing my voice :inquisitive: Could it be that :wall: is the reason you can not hear me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .
So I'm a religeous nut? Because I see scientific evidence that points to a young earth, ask the very important question about the foundation of the Big Bang that no one else is asking? Because I am a Christian? BTW, I am a lot of things, but religeous I am not.
As for hillbilly evolutionist - the title suits anyone who bastardizes another's point by pulling out unintended shite from a post.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Whoa.
I think we need to bring in a snow-maker to cool things down a bit.
P.S:
Quote:
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!
Yes Tribesman if you are going to poke fun, please use satire ~;p.
P.P.S: Banging your head against a wall may cause brain-damage, so I'd advise against such a measure.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!
Zain , perhaps you should have listened to your father , debate is evil:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
As for hillbilly evolutionist - the title suits anyone who bastardizes another's point by pulling out unintended shite from a post.
Unintended shite , now that is interesting , lets talk excrement , well you have been throughout the topic , but hey its your topic .
Now could you remind me , as I don't know this bible book thing , how many humans were on board ?
Now taking into consideration that these people were of course superhuman and really dedicated to their job so could perhaps do the work of 10 men or even 100 . How many extra hours would a day have to contain to allow them to remove the excrement from , say for example , just 10% of the number of animals you suggest were on board ? then how many really extra special hours would have to be added to a day to allow them to also feed and water just 10% of the animals ?
Talking of food could you explain how animals that only eat fresh vegitation were catered for , was there a rather large greenhouse up on deck ?the bible doesn't mention it , perhaps it was edited out:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then young boy , you are saying only one type of canine , and all of the other types have developed from the one type on board :2thumbsup: Congratulations you have just speeded up evolution havn't you , by a really fantastic rate :no: Do you have any explanation as to how these developingdogs manged to mutate and sprea around the world so quickly ? remember an animal with 4 legs and paws is an unclean animal so there would be a very very very limited starting stock.
Hmmmmmm.....I see you avoid the insects , is that because you are talking rubbish ?
Tell you what , just to generous have an easy question , can you explain the rainbow ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"
First, there were not millions of animals. Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 16,000 sheep-size animals, at the most, would have been on board. This number could have been as low as 2000 if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the family level of modern animal classification. These numbers include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer that a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals! The remainder would be used for food and storage.
The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=28[
OK. Amphibians can't survive a year without any land. They require land as they are semi terrestrial. Insects can't survive either. Housefly: 2 weeks. mayfly: 1 day.
So, cyotes, foxes, wolves all came from the same animal. How? I'd say they evolved.
The assumptions that you make in that all animals can be placed in boxes for a year is risable. Many species need domains which are miles in size. They'll go mad (literally) in a box.
100 years to construct a boat. Of wood. The bottom wood not at all affected by the weight, nor rot. LOL
And then: food. Herbivores eat can eat masses of food. Carnivores eat meat - and generally fresh meat as well. fresh meat that lasts for a year... :inquisitive:
They make perfect sense if you set out to find them correct. They are obviously fables if one just thinks logically about the details.
Where does micro-evolution end and macro evolution begin? Surely it is all a question of the length of time that it is measured over.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Some quick questions that appears by simply looking at some of those sites (namely icr).
How did aquatious annimals die in the flood?
Why did God create degenerating humans?
Why isn't the fact that Mary Schweitzer had to defossilize the bone marrow to find out that it wsa way better preserved than what was previously suspected? (yeah minor stuff here)
Why does God care specifically for humans when there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe, many with more than 100 billion stars each. According to Psalm 147:4, God calls them all by name. No; omnipresence means that all of God is present at every place, at the same time.
This means that no matter how large the universe, and how many beings reside within His kingdom, each of us can have His full and undivided attention in our own hearts. ? As this specififfic care is the foundation of the Monotheism on earth.
Why creationists often makes the same thing that they accuse evolutionists of, namely having a pre-determinated oppinion?
From the new article section.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Mutations? No, simple changes due to casted out genes. I can not accept the Evolution saying that something changes for no reason.
Something changes because of 'mistakes' in reproducing DNA, if the mistake leads to a 'better' individual the mistake will be passed on to the children of that individual and so on. This is of course, horribly simplified.
Quote:
I do, however, will accept Natural Selection.
Then how does that not lead to evolution ? The best adapted survive and pass their DNA on to their children, how is this not evolution ?
Quote:
What changes have evolution made? Does it make someone a better person?
It made us humans for a start :2thumbsup:
This is no argument for Creationism however, Budhims and Hinduism and pretty much all major religions have made people better persons, they have different views on creation and can't be all correct. So they might as well all have it wrong. There's no connection between something being true and having a positive effect on people. Fairy tales are told to teach children valuable lessons. Santa Claus is made up so children would behave better. Neither of those are true.
Quote:
I understand that as far as that goes, it's long term. Computer Programs, in the human body? I'm probably missing something, can you help me out a little to understand this?
No, on a computer. I'll try to explain briefly:
Lets say you have a problem you want to solve which involves you finding the minimum of a certain mathematical function. This is what is commonly known as an optimization problem. Sometimes functions are too complex to find the minimum analytically or by another 'standard' technique. Genetic algoritmes use 'genomes', mostly binary strings of ones and zero representing numbers corresponding to the variables of the function. You start of with a large set of those genomes, you evaluate them (this corresponds to a thing living in the world) and you keep the best x% (only the most adapted breed), you then use the same methods as nature to make new genomes: cross-over and mutation, simply put, cross over is an exchange of data between two individuals (so parts of the binary string get transferred from one to the other) and mutation (a 1 can change into a 0, with a small chance). You make new genomes (normally the same amount as the original amount of parent genomes, so twice as much as there were parents used). You repeat this process a few times (sometimes quite a lot of times actually) and in the end, if your parameters (population size, cross over rate, mutation rate, etc) are well chosen you will find a 'good' solution to your problem, even if you start of with an initially randomly generated population.
This shows that the basic mechanism of evolution can be used to obtain an 'optimum' (you don't know if it's absolute), if you consider the function to be a 'niche' environment it shows that a population over generations can relatively quickly adapt to the environment. Now these algoritmes are far simpler than the way DNA works, since DNA can change size, has duplicate copies of genes (possibly), has genes ordened in a certain way etc. So just by using the inherent properties of the reproduction process life has the possibillity of quickly adapting to pretty much any given environment.
Also if you start out with a certain, uniform population, split it in two and evaluate two, sufficiently different problems (two different niches in the environment) you should get two populations of pretty different individuals since they are each aimed at their own problem. The same thing has happened in nature, each creature is essentially a solution to the problem of reproduction: using minimum energy to produce as much offspring as possible. This problem is dependant on the environment, if there is no food, getting energy from the sun is a good idea, if there are plants, eating them might be more efficient, etc...
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory.
No, they doth disagree with creationism, but they don't go hand in hand. There is afaik far more uncertainty about the Big Bang theory than there is about evolution. Although recent measurement of 'background radiation' seems like an indication that the Big Bang theory might be true.
Evolution theory can be backed by fossil records, rudimentary organs, DNA findings, and theoretical models of evolution. These say nothing about the Big bang.
Both theories are only related to a Creationist, since they are both different theories that contradict their theory.
