Creation vs Evolution

[doc_bean]

Ok, maybe I should have said "a canine will always be a canine" when I was talking about species never changing into other species.

But a lot of those animals you are grouping together can't breed with eachother, fill in a different niche in the world, LIVE ON DIFFERENT CONTINENTS and generally don't have much to with eachother except they probably have a common ancestor, which si exactly what evolution is about.

Also, if the flood was real, how do you explain Australian fauna being so different from what is found in the rest of the world ? Did Noah just drop different animals in different places ? Did they live together before the flood ? Did noah sail around the world collection animals or did he load them up in one place ?

[rory_20_uk]

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

I've not had time to read all the FAQs, but after delving in randomly they all basically repeat the same thing.

I liked this:

"Could it be that tyrannosaurs were mostly plant-eaters, not meat-eaters? The shape of their teeth alone can't tell us what they ate. Perhaps they used their sharp teeth and claws to tear up tough plants and fruits, not dinosaurs. Obviously sharp teeth can serve other purposes than simply cutting meat, just as kitchen knives can be used for cutting carrots as well as steaks.

Many sharp-toothed animals living today are plant-eaters and rarely (or never) eat flesh. A few of many examples include the Giant Panda, the large Australian fruit bat, and some apes and bears."

"Killing dinosaurs, biting through bones and tearing off hunks of meat should leave definite signs of tooth wear. Sometimes a tooth would have been broken or lost. An Albertosaurus (al-BERT-oh-SOR-us) was found with teeth that show almost no wear. The tips and delicate edge serration's are said to be in almost perfect condition. Yet this tyrannosaur was an adult."

Next page...

"Dinosaurs like the Triceratops had very strong jaws and replaceable teeth."

Apparently links to external sources is something not required on Creationist sites. Theories can be disproved, new ones made with a vew vague comments.

Again I liked the one (to paraphrase) science is wrong because it draws from the wrong basis. As it doesn't start with not the theory but the certainty that of creationism it is wrong. That early scientists were creationists is further evidence... apparently that the most learned men in the world were swayed from their once held beliefs by the sheer numbing weight of evidence is of course ignored.

[naut]

Why does God care specifically for humans when there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe

Well lets say there are an infinate number of inhospitible worlds in the Universe. But only a finite number of hospitible worlds.

Now a finite divided by an infinite, is undefined. So technically nothing should exist.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, seeing as the Universe is said to be finite, there are a large, yet finite number of worlds that are inhospitable to human life. Possibly not other life.

There is a much smaller number of hospitable worlds.

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

[Tribesman]

Rythmic , don't forget that according to the extention of that theory we are the descendants the of really dumb useless aliens who replaced the cavemen that didn't live in caves .
Remember to pay homage to the mice and dolpins , the true overlords of mankind .

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

42

[Duke of Gloucester]

(From your first link: http://sycophants.info/hawking.html) Hawking did use very specific phrases:

- "all right to study the evolution of the universe"
- "after the big bang"
- "should not inquire into the big bang itself"
- "moment of Creation"
- "therefore the work of God"

He will make all that up and flat out lie?

Well there are two possibilities - either the Pope did tell Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang itself, or he didn't. Evidence in favour of the Pope having done so is his SH's statement and the fact he has repeated it consistently i.e when he re-tells the story severall times he doesn't vary it signficantly. Evidence against the Pope saying this is:

• no similar statements from other attendees
• no evidence in the text of the address that such a statement was made
• no evidence of the Pope making similar statements at other times
• the fact that such a statement would be inconsistent with the Pope's approach to science
• to say that the moment of creation was the work of God but the rest of nature is not is theologically flawed. I think the Pope would realise this, but Stephen Hawking might not.

Make up your own mind, based on the evidence.

[Avicenna]

Rythmic , don't forget that according to the extention of that theory we are the descendants the of really dumb useless aliens who replaced the cavemen that didn't live in caves .
Remember to pay homage to the mice and dolpins , the true overlords of mankind .

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

42

Wait, dolphins? Since when did the dolphins join in?

[Duke of Gloucester]

You need to read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, partly because it is a really funny book, but also because you need a good knowledge of the trilogy to understand many org references. Watching Monty Python is important for the same reasons.

[Avicenna]

depressent

[Avicenna]

depressent

Oh dear, sorry about that. Forgot that I had copied something else, as the quick reply failed once again.

Anyway, why did the movie miss out the dolphins? Or did I fall asleep at the wrong moment?

[doc_bean]

Oh dear, sorry about that. Forgot that I had copied something else, as the quick reply failed once again.

Anyway, why did the movie miss out the dolphins? Or did I fall asleep at the wrong moment?

It was the very first scene, even before the titles iirc. It also worked much better in the book, as did everything else that was in the movie. Read the books, seriously (just the first three, the rest is crap...)

[Quietus]

Well there are two possibilities - either the Pope did tell Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang itself, or he didn't. Evidence in favour of the Pope having done so is his SH's statement and the fact he has repeated it consistently i.e when he re-tells the story severall times he doesn't vary it signficantly. Evidence against the Pope saying this is:

• no similar statements from other attendees
• no evidence in the text of the address that such a statement was made
• no evidence of the Pope making similar statements at other times
• the fact that such a statement would be inconsistent with the Pope's approach to science
• to say that the moment of creation was the work of God but the rest of nature is not is theologically flawed. I think the Pope would realise this, but Stephen Hawking might not.

Make up your own mind, based on the evidence.

Ok Duke. Coincidentally I clicked upon this Hawking 'quotes' link and behold the answer. :)

http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_SHawking.htm

and I quote:

At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference --

Note the line i've bolded was not in your first link's quote: (http://sycophants.info/hawking.html). Hence, what the pope said was not recorded since the event or encounter Hawking was referring to occurred after the conference. :)

[Duke of Gloucester]

Interesting, but it also says "participants" and "us". It would be interesting to see if any other delegates have the same recollection of the audience. If they do, then we can take Hawking's account as being reliable. Until there is corroborating testimony, other objections (especially the theological one) suggest to me that he has not remembered or did not understand what he was told.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Anyway, why did the movie miss out the dolphins? Or did I fall asleep at the wrong moment?

The movie was terrible. Any time you were asleep was the right moment.

[Tribesman]

http://www.jengajam.com/r/dolphins-so-long-thank
A message from the dolphins

[ICantSpellDawg]

do life, morality or purpose make any more sense either way?

[Papewaio]

do life, morality or purpose make any more sense either way?

From the point of view of your genes, yes they do. If any of the strategies you choose helps spread those genes (not necessairly from you, but from your group that shares said genes) then they all have a purpose. So a moral code may just be a vehicle for the genes to spread, it may be an independent meme or it could be an interaction between the two... the strongest possibly being a symbiotic relationship between meme and gene (though shalt procreate being an obvious one)

[AwesomeArcher]

I believe in Evolution, but i still think that there is something "else" out there that is helping everything along. So I voted combo.

[crossroad]

First let me say, what you read was part of the actual article. I put the link at the bottom but did not mean to plagiarize.

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.

I'm sure most of the Amphibians did die, along with the dryland animals that did not make it on the ark. My theory is that there was some sort of moonpool in the middle of the ark. Whether it accomidated Amphibians or not, I don't know. I think most insects would have been wiped out as well, but the massive amount of debris that would have been floating, scattered around the world would have saved a small remnant. For all we know, half the worlds "kinds" of animals might have went extinct because of the flood. Remember, God can do what he wants to. But I think the data we have does a fair job showing how Noah's ark could have happened. Also, the bible does not say the earth was under water for a whole year. Parts of the earth would have been drying up much earlier, tops of mountains would have quickly been a refuge for some creatures that did not make it on the ark.

So, cyotes, foxes, wolves all came from the same animal. How?

If we go with the idea that Noah took only one kind, then the answer is yes. The bible did not list which animals he took.

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.

I made no assumptions that they were placed in boxes (don't make me call you a hillbilly evolutionist) but God did tell Noah to build rooms in it. We don't know how big these room were. Noah did not have to go out and round any animals up. They filed in as if God himself had his hand on them leading them. We don't know if they were in their own little cages, or if they roamed free on the ark. Either way, God was in control of everything.

100 years to construct a boat. Of wood. The bottom wood not at all affected by the weight, nor rot. LOL

God told Noah to line it with pitch. It would not have rotted. As far as the weight is concerned, big boats often haul heavy loads. Noah would have had to use giant logs from trees making the ark extremely stout. And wood floats!!! Like you said, a 100 year construction.

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...

Noah was instructed to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal. I think the extra animals were actually food for the meat eaters. Sounds harsh, but this was a devistating time in earths history. Plus animals would have been born - a small "circle of life" for any of you Elton John fans. I know this brings up questions about lions hunting on the ark, or rattle snakes striking those that came to close, but as I said before, there would not have been chaos, God was in control.

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.

micro-evolution never ends.
macro-evolution never begins.
There can be changes within the species, but never changes to different species.

Great questions rory thanks!

[Tribesman]

Hmmmm...crossroad contradicts himself

The bible did not list which animals he took.

Noah was instructed to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal.


My theory is that there was some sort of moonpool in the middle of the ark.
yep that would look nice , in conjunction with the greenhouse .

God told Noah to line it with pitch.
Ah , Pitch , now what pitch would this be ?

As far as the weight is concerned, big boats often haul heavy loads. Noah would have had to use giant logs from trees making the ark extremely stout. And wood floats!!!
So you not only do not understand scientific theories , you don't understand maritime engineering .
Remember, God can do what he wants to
They filed in as if God himself had his hand on them leading them.
God was in control of everything.
God was in control.
oh look , everytime it looks like you are talking bollox ....God did it
Also, the bible does not say the earth was under water for a whole year.
doesn't it ?

First let me say, what you read was part of the actual article. I put the link at the bottom but did not mean to plagiarize.

You don't mean to say that you are just repeating the rubbish from those sites you linked , what a surprise .

Any thoughts on the rainbow yet

[rory_20_uk]

I'm in many ways a lot happier when theories rely on God doing everything, as logical argument gives up at that point. Why did God not just vanish the bad people unstead of flooding the world? Meh, he just did. Bad mood, change of scenery, wanted Noah to learn carpentry - who knows?

Again, there is the other thought that God appears to have been very active during those days with all the slaughter and havoc he was causing personally - and in many cases to show how butch he was. And then suddenly he stopped. Why? Again perhaps he just is having a break - logical argument is not applicable.

So. On the Ark all animals which require a habitat of many square miles (and hence my "box" analagy - ANY enclosure would be too small for some of the hunters) didn't for the time of the flood. Maybe the animals stopped eating / defacating. Maybe God made the trees float better and made them stronger.

But in such a context there is no need to try to lather pseudoscience round the place. Just say God did it all, and modern rules just don't apply.

I'm agnostic, so I'm happy with that. There's no evidence that reliably dates from the time, so who knows?

[InsaneApache]

So if the whole world was flooded, all of it, to the top of Everest, how did they breathe in the oxygen deficient atmosphere. Or did God provide some spare spacesuits along with this (first time I've heard this one ) 'moonpool'.

Talk about make it up as you go along.

[doc_bean]

So if the whole world was flooded, all of it, to the top of Everest, how did they breathe in the oxygen deficient atmosphere. Or did God provide some spare spacesuits along with this (first time I've heard this one ) 'moonpool'.

Talk about make it up as you go along.

Algae are responsible for 30-50% of the oxygen production iirc, and you'd have a lot less users due to every animal not on the ark getting killed....

What am I doing here, defending the creationists ? I need to get out of here !!!

[InsaneApache]

Algae are responsible for 30-50% of the oxygen production iirc, and you'd have a lot less users due to every animal not on the ark getting killed....

What am I doing here, defending the creationists ? I need to get out of here !!!

hehe, and another thing is there enough water on the planet to cover the Earth to a depth of 29,035 ft. ?

[rory_20_uk]

God put the water there. Easy. Then he took it away again. He made the universe, what's a bit of water?

[InsaneApache]

oopps...how silly of me.That must be the case, even though it's not mentioned in the Good Book.

I wonder where he put it?

[rory_20_uk]

oopps...how silly of me.That must be the case, even though it's not mentioned in the Good Book.

I wonder where he put it?

Obviously it is implied...

[BDC]

I thought people grew out of world-flood stories with the birth of geology?

Most the early geologists were clergy also.

EDIT: Better question here. If the world floods (assuming it can), what happens to all the salt and fresh water aquatic creatures? The salt content of the water is going to be completely messed up for both, they're going to all swell/shrival up and die.

So Noah must have had a big aquarium onboard, and some sort of cunning way of deep-sea fishing fish straight into pressurised containers.

Cunning guy.

[crossroad]

Thanks rory, for the dialog. It seems like you are actually conversing instead of spouting like some.

I'm in many ways a lot happier when theories rely on God doing everything, as logical argument gives up at that point. Why did God not just vanish the bad people unstead of flooding the world? Meh, he just did. Bad mood, change of scenery, wanted Noah to learn carpentry - who knows?

Again, there is the other thought that God appears to have been very active during those days with all the slaughter and havoc he was causing personally - and in many cases to show how butch he was. And then suddenly he stopped. Why? Again perhaps he just is having a break - logical argument is not applicable.

Slaughter and havoc. That one has always bothered me, but let me take a stab at it (no pun intended). Modern preachers/teachers have painted God as an all loving God with outstretched arms waiting for his children to come running into his arms. Though this is true, it is not a complete description. God is also a just God. He can be disappointed and angry, which many criticize and question his "perfection". But having emotion does not disprove perfection. A father can not be the perfect if he does not become disappointed and punish his children from time to time. A husband can not be a perfect husband if he is not happy to see his wife. So, why did God wipe out entire groups of people? The biblical answers are often - they were immoral, they were heathens. Sometime it seemed like they were just in the way, hence the reason I said this one has always bothered me. But, I also believe in the sovereignty of God. He knows best. If he thought the world needed to be wiped out with a flood then it should have been wiped out. As to why He's not as active now, He is just as active now as He was then. The difference is that in those days He worked on a broad scale, now He works individually. With the coming of Jesus and "New Testament", God changed the way He deals with His people. Now it’s on a personal level, which I'm sure is way on the other end of the spectrum if you are an agnostic. But countless lives have been changed, miracles documented. Not that He does not work on a broad scale, ever, but the focus here is that through all the havoc in bringing the human race to this point, and the coming of Jesus, now we see a great movement of God in the lives of people.

So. On the Ark all animals which require a habitat of many square miles (and hence my "box" analagy - ANY enclosure would be too small for some of the hunters) didn't for the time of the flood. Maybe the animals stopped eating / defacating. Maybe God made the trees float better and made them stronger.

But in such a context there is no need to try to lather pseudoscience round the place. Just say God did it all, and modern rules just don't apply.

I'm agnostic, so I'm happy with that. There's no evidence that reliably dates from the time, so who knows?

As far a habitat and space goes. Zoo's do it all the time. I realize zoo's give a little more space, but there are other places that stick animals like lions and tigers in cages for most of their lives (sad and cruel, but it happens). I think the majority of these animals would have been very young. Besides taking less space and needing less food, it would have given each kind of animal a greater opportunity to multiply when the reached dry land.

BTW, I'm an agnostic too (concerning space aliens)

[crossroad]

Algae are responsible for 30-50% of the oxygen production iirc, and you'd have a lot less users due to every animal not on the ark getting killed....

What am I doing here, defending the creationists ? I need to get out of here !!!

Thanks doc. All you're doing is pointing out the possibilities. I appreciate a thinker.