Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

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

Exactly. God said that He was going to flood the earth. Your point about modern rules just don't apply are somewhat correct. This could not have happened without His involvement.

[InsaneApache]

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

Oh the irony.

[rory_20_uk]

Phrases such as God making the Pharoh stubborn so he could visit plagues on him makes me think that he is far from perfect. Saying that "god knows best" is a complete whitewash, and is in the best traditions of the Inquisition, as one has then stopped thinking at all, even when faced with problems.

You say he is as active now as he was then, although all evidence clearly points to the opposite. The odd documented miracle hardly suffices.

As a doctor one thing that really annoys me is this:

Something goes well. People thank God for it all.
Something goes badly. People question / rant at the doctors.

We did all the work to make people better. If in spite of this they died clearly they should be asking God for answers, not man.

Zoos do lock up animals. They frequently go mad in under a year.
Young often have increased needs for food due to the speed they are growing at.

Worrying about algae supplying oxygen is pointless. If God can flood the planet then there is no need to try to use fragments of science to make this so. Just blanket the whole issue with "god worked it out, OK?"

The animals were placed in suspended animation for a year, after God teleported them to their cubicals.

See? Much simpler with trying to shoehorn science to fit the facts.

[_Martyr_]

See? Much simpler with trying to shoehorn science to fit the facts.

Dont you mean the "facts"... ;)

[crossroad]

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.

Many did die. I thought of copying this article and pasting into this post, but I won’t. If you are interested, this should help answer your question.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=351

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood? (#222)
by Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.
Abstract
Much attention has been given to how the animals would be brought to, fit in, and survive on Noah's Ark.[1] But little or no concern has been voiced as to how aquatic animals could have lived outside in the Flood. Obviously, terrestrial air-breathing animals could not live through the land-covering deluge, but one would think aquatic animals would be right at home in all that water. Not so!
Introduction

Much attention has been given to how the animals would be brought to, fit in, and survive on Noah's Ark.[1] But little or no concern has been voiced as to how aquatic animals could have lived outside in the Flood. Obviously, terrestrial air-breathing animals could not live through the land-covering deluge, but one would think aquatic animals would be right at home in all that water. Not so!

Water life has specific physiological and ecological requirements just like terrestrial life.[2] A catastrophe the size of the Flood would certainly bring with it gigantic problems affecting the very survival of many species. Indeed, the fossil record indicates that many taxonomic groups became extinct during the deposition of the geologic sedimentary layers.[3] Some organisms would have simply succumbed to the trauma of the turbulence. Others would have found suitable living space destroyed, and hence died for lack of appropriate habitat. For example, too much fresh water for obligate (bound to) marine species or vice versa would have led to death of those unable to adapt. Not only are there salt-concentration problems, but also temperature, light, oxygen, contaminants, and nutritional considerations. These must all be evaluated in discussing survival of water-dwelling creatures.

To simplify the exercise, five examples have been selected of fishes that are bound to fresh or salt water and those that can go between these major habitats. The chosen fishes (sunfish, catfish, trout, eel, and codfish) will be used to represent clear fresh water, muddy fresh water, anadromous (running up to fresh water from sea water to spawn), catadromous (the reverse) and obligate marine habitats or behavior, respectively. These categories will be discussed with reference to three main factors affecting their survival: salinity, temperature, and turbidity.

PHYSIOLOGICAL RANGES

Salinity
Fish have a problem in balancing the fluids outside their bodies with those inside. In general, freshwater fishes are constantly getting too much fresh water in their bodies from food, drinking water, and tissue transfer. On the opposite side, marine fishes get too little fresh water to maintain fluid balance due to the large input of salt in the drinking water and constant osmotic pressure to draw fresh water out of these tissues into the surrounding sea.[4]

The kidneys and gills are the two organs used to manage this balance. If a freshwater fish gets too much water, then the kidney is called upon to dump as much water as possible while retaining the circulating salts. Marine bony fish have to get rid of the excess salts largely through the gills and conserve the internal water through resorption.

Sea-run trout move from sea water to fresh water to spawn, while eels do just the opposite. Both have to be able to reverse their removal of water and salt according to the amount of salt in their environment. Sun fishes and cod remain in fresh water and sea water, respectively, for their whole life cycle. Salt content might range from nearly zero in freshwater to 35 parts per thousand (x103 ppm or 35,000 mg/l) in sea water. Obligate freshwater fish typically have an upper lethal level of seven parts per thousand (7,000 mg/l). Obligate marine species have a very narrow limit of salt tolerance.[5] Dromous (running/migrating) species are able to adapt to the new environments by osmotic regulation.

Temperature
The range of temperatures tolerated by fishes varies from species to species and the assorted habitats. Some fish have a very narrow range of tolerance at the cold, warm, or hot temperature parts of the heat scale. Others show a wide range of heat tolerance from freezing to hot waters (0-32° C). Developmental stages are frequently limited by narrow temperature requirements within the overall range of the adult.

Most species, including cold-water types, can tolerate at least brief exposures to 24°C and low temperatures approaching 2°C, as long as there are prolonged acclimation periods (several days to weeks). Preferred temperatures for the representative adult fish are as follows: Trout, 16-21°C; sunfish, 16-28°C; catfish, 21-29°C; eel, probably 16-28°C; codfish 12-16° C. [6,7]

Turbidity
Particulate matter that is in suspension in natural waters is measured photoelectrically as turbidity. It consists of erosional silt, organic particles, bacteria, and plankton. Such materials adversely affect fish by covering the substrate with a smothering layer that kills food organisms and spawning sites. In addition, the molar action of the silt damages gills and invertebrate respiratory structures. Fish combat such materials by secreting mucus that carries the particles away. Indirectly, turbidity screens out light and decreases the photic zone for photosynthesis. The range of turbidity might be described as: clear < 10 ppm (mg/l), turbid 10 to 250 ppm, and very turbid > 250 ppm. Wallen[8] found that many fish species survive turbidities of 100,000 ppm for one week or more.

SURVIVAL STRATEGY

Runoff to the Ocean
Heavy rainfall over the land would quickly fill the river basins with torrential flows. These in turn would empty out onto the encroaching coastline as a freshwater blanket. Odum[5] refers to situations similar to this as a "highly stratified or `salt-wedge' estuary." Such a massive freshwater outflow from the continents would join with the oceanic rainfall to form a halocline or strong density gradient, in which fish flushed out from the land aquatic systems could continue to survive in a freshwater environment. Stratification like this might even survive strong winds, if the freshwater depth was great enough to prevent internal current mixing. Thus, a situation might be envisioned where freshwater and marine fishes could survive the deluge in spite of being temporarily displaced.

Turbidity Flows
On the other hand, large turbid particles and enormous bedloads could move into the ocean as settleable particulate rain and ground-hugging slurries. Heavier particles would fall out in the slower-moving coastal waters, and the mudflows would sediment out over the ocean floor. Although there would be turbulence at the freshwater/saltwater interface, the particle insertion would probably occur without appreciable mixing. With the range of tolerance given above, many fishes might be able to survive extended exposure to high turbidity .

Serendipity at Mount St. Helens
The biotic recovery at Mount St. Helens after the May 18, 1980 eruption demonstrates rapid and widely ranging restoration. Obviously, the Flood would have been one or more orders of magnitude greater a catastrophe than that eruption. But such an event does help us to see ways of recovery.

SPIRIT LAKE

April 4, 1980 June 30, 1980
Alkalinity (mg/l) 0.01 150.5
Temperature (°C) 4.0 22.4
Turbidity (mg/l) 0.75 24.61
With regard to the three factors of interest (salinity—approximately alkalinity, in the sense of dissolved solutes—, temperature, and turbidity), significant changes were seen in the affected areas (data transformed to units used previously).[9,10]

Still, a little more than a month after the eruption, the lake most exposed to the catastrophic event, Spirit Lake, had tolerable alkalinity , ambient temperature, and low turbidity. This is not to deny that all the endemic fish were killed in the event and probably could not have survived if replanted in these waters on June 30, 1980 due to large organic oxygen demands from decaying tree debris and seeps of methane and sulfur dioxide. But within ten years, the lake appears to be able to support fish, as many other aquatic species are back and well established. If the lake were connected directly to the Toutle River, then salmonids probably would have made their reentry by this time.

Perhaps the most significant observation, though, in examining the post-eruption history, is that a variety of habitats within and adjacent to the blast zone survived the event with minimal impact on the continuity of the ecosystem. Meta Lake, within the blast zone for example, had an ice cover at the time of the searing blast, which protected the dormant ecosystem from experiencing much disruption from the heat, anoxia, and air-fall tephra. Fish and support systems picked up where they left off before the onset of the winter season.

Similar experiences were observed in Swift Reservoir, in spite of massive mud and debris flows into the lake by way of Muddy Creek (personal conversation with aquatic biologist on duty at that time). Fish were displaced into the adjacent unaffected watersheds or downstream into lower reservoirs. However, within two years, massive plankton blooms had occurred and ecosystem recovery was well underway with migrant recruits.

Such a confined catastrophe (500 square miles) enables one to project expectations from a major catastrophe, such as the Flood. First, in spite of the enormous magnitude of such events, there appear to be refuges for survival even in close proximity to the most damaging action. Second, recovery can be incredibly fast—from one month to ten years. Third, recruitment from minimally affected zones can occur with normal migratory behavior of organisms. Although some animal and plant populations or even species might be annihilated in such events, remnant individuals can reestablish new populations.

-- References --
John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,1961), pp. 63-79.
M. M. Ellis, "Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution" in Lowell E. Keup, William M. Ingram, and Kenneth M. Mackenthun, Biology of Water Pollution (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967), pp. 129-185.
John C. Briggs, "A Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction?" BioScience 41 (1991), pp. 619-624.
Ernst Florey, An Introduction to General and Comparative Animal Physiology (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1966), pp. 97-110.
Eugene P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1971), pp. 328,354.
Alex Calhoun, Inland Fisheries Management (State of California , The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, 1966), pp. 194, 375, 448.
William A. Anikouchine and R. W. Sternberg, The World Ocean: An Introduction to Oceanography (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973), pp. 215, 223.
I. E. Wallen, "The Direct Effect of Turbidity on Fishes," Oklahoma Agric. and Mech. College Bulletin 48 (1951), pp. 18-24.
Robert C. Wissmar, Allan H. Devol, Ahmad E. Nevissi, James R. Sedell, "Chemical Changes of Lakes Within the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone," Science 216 (1982), pp. 175-178.
Robert C. Wissmar, Allan H. Devol, James T. Staley, and James R. Sedell, "Biological Responses of Lakes in the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone," Science 216 (1981), pp. 178-181.
* Dr. Kenneth Cumming is Professor of Biology and Dean at the ICR Graduate School.

Here are a couple of quotes:
Indeed, the fossil record indicates that many taxonomic groups became extinct during the deposition of the geologic sedimentary layers.
Sea-run trout move from sea water to fresh water to spawn, while eels do just the opposite. Both have to be able to reverse their removal of water and salt according to the amount of salt in their environment.

[rory_20_uk]

No, the bible said God was going to flood the earth. Very different thing.

[InsaneApache]

As saline fish cannot (without one or two exceptions) survive in fresh water and fresh water fish are certainly doomed in a saline environment, can you answer this.

How exactly did these innocent creatures offend the Almighty? (Unless they had been inadvertently fed to the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah ).

[Tribesman]

Awww poor little boy doesn't want to play anymore , boohoo, whassup cross , are you stuck with the science of the rainbow ?
stuck with the insects , stuck with shipbuilding , stuck with the pitch , stuck with food , stuck with amphibians , stuck with excrement .
Tell you what , to make it easy , you are even stuck with simple arithmetic, you posted figures from a widely discredited source that don't add up .
But thats no surprise as you get all your information from widely discredited websites .

Oh and nice to see that yet again you have shown your ignorance of scripture .
Now that is strange from someone who is pushing a scriptural account of the earth .


Talk about make it up as you go along.

Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .

[Zain]

Awww poor little boy doesn't want to play anymore , boohoo, whassup cross , are you stuck with the science of the rainbow ?
stuck with the insects , stuck with shipbuilding , stuck with the pitch , stuck with food , stuck with amphibians , stuck with excrement .
Tell you what , to make it easy , you are even stuck with simple arithmetic, you posted figures from a widely discredited source that don't add up .
But thats no surprise as you get all your information from widely discredited websites .

Oh and nice to see that yet again you have shown your ignorance of scripture .
Now that is strange from someone who is pushing a scriptural account of the earth .


Talk about make it up as you go along.

Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .

Like I said, all you do is ridicule. And your worth here smaller then a mustard seed.

[doc_bean]

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

Well, I'm certainly not a flood supporter, people tend to forget he needed to take all the plants too, people always forget about the plants...

and a zoo has, like, 0.000001% of all wildlife to be found on earth in it.

[Redleg]

Darwin refused to discuss his own beliefs about a supreme being in public, once writing to his friend Asa Gray, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."

Maybe those individuals in this discussion should ponder on that for a while, versus resorting to ad hominem arguements.

[Tribesman]

Like I said, all you do is ridicule.
When the position being taken is ridiculous , when the poster continually contradicts himself , avoids questions and issues that completely undermine his point that he has carefully taken from crap websites , when he shown an ignorance of the very scriptures that he is claiming to be taking as a basis for his position then there is nothing to do other than ridicule .


And your worth here smaller then a mustard seed.
Silly little boy

[rory_20_uk]

Personal attacks are going to summon the moderators... Let's play nice

[doc_bean]

Many did die. I thought of copying this article and pasting into this post, but I won’t. If you are interested, this should help answer your question.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=351

I really have to agree with Rory here, you can't bring science into it to prove it could happen if you contradict every scientific prove against its possibility by saying "that doesn't apply to God". Either you believe God plays by the rules (the Rules of physics and nature in general, which He might have made, different issue) or you don't, if you believe the latter (an interventionist God) than pretty much all science is flawed and pointless, since God does whatever he wants anyway. You can't say the flood could have happened because God poured some extra water in, and then say that fish, plants, wildlife etc could survive based on scientific theory. The flood (as described by the Bible) couldn't have happened in the first place, so all conclusions based on the hypothesis that it happened are ridicoulous. You might as well say the gravity works in reverse and then say: "that's why Jesus ascended to heaven". It's pseudo science, an abomination to real science. As is creationism in general, really

Seriously, you said you like a thinker, then become one. Look at the evidence, and then make up your mind, either the laws of physics (whatever they may be) apply 100% of the time, or God just makes it up as He goes along. You seem to accept micro-evolution (whatever that is) but don't accept it on a macro-level ? Why, what's the difference ? One is simply an extension of another. You talk about species not turning into different species, and that is, for the most part, right, a canine doesn't evolve into a cat, and a plant isn't likely to sprout legs anytime soon. But their DNA, their code, adjusts, adapts. This you can accept, it seems. Now if the code changes enough, why won't you call it a different species ? What even, is your definition of a species ?

You link to all these sites (well two, it seems) but have you ever considered that that is less than 1% of what is written about evolution ? That there might be a reason why everyone seems to prefer evolution ? A few people don't, you're always going to have those, some people probably don't believe in atoms. But since 1 scientist out of thousands disagrees it doesn't make him right. And if you're thinking of bringing Einstein or Planck into this: they had their own different theories which could explain observed phenomena far better than the current reigning theories. Creationism doesn't explain squat. It doesn't answer the one true science question 'How ?'. Because God did it ? That's not an answer, if we accepted that, then we'd all still be bowing down every thunderstorm and dance to make it rain. If human understanding has shown as anything, it's that things tend to happen because they have been caused by something else, life, the universe and everything else is like a giant, complex domino. Sure, you could answer who/what or why it all started, and you might say god did it. But an all powerful being that occasionally knocks some blocks over just because ? Please. We have mastered electricity, we have mastered nuclear power, we can build machines with single atoms, we have mastered flight. Why ? Because someone, somewhere, didn't accept the answer 'God causes it'. And so far, we have always been proven right, we have always found a cause. There is no reason to believe we have reached our limit here. In fact, evolution explains the world pretty darn well even.

I probably won't post much in this thread anymore, I find it to tyring, like shouting at a brick wall. So I'll just, once again, summarize my point: THINK. Don't start with the Bible as the answer and work your way backwards. Start with the facts: diversity, DNA etc. and then THINK. Think about how that could have come to be, and if you happen to think God did it, remember Newton didn't accept that as answer as to why things fall down. THINK.

Something goes well. People thank God for it all.
Something goes badly. People question / rant at the doctors.

Ah, the stories I could tell about incapable doctors....

[Ser Clegane]

Let's play nice

Indeed

[_Martyr_]

doc_bean let me be the first to say, GREAT POST! Youve managed to articulate exactly what the rest of us were too frustrated to get out.

[rory_20_uk]

Incapable doctors? Heh... The patient never gets told about things that go wrong when they should have gone right as we would not be Professional to do so... and we want to get another job.

I think that we've shown that on issues of Belief no one is going to give any ground... But we knew that already... It's been a good , but for me it's

[Tribesman]

It's pseudo science, an abomination to real science. As is creationism in general, really
Yep , faith is faith , science is science , those that try to explain their faith through science(which they cannot since they keep getting stuck and having too say God did it) is a sign of lack of faith .

[doc_bean]

Incapable doctors? Heh... The patient never gets told about things that go wrong when they should have gone right as we would not be Professional to do so... and we want to get another job.

Being wrongly diagnosed can get noticed

[rory_20_uk]

Being wrongly diagnosed can get noticed

Really? How does the patient / family know? The doctors generally stick together, so will not say that they've mistreated you.

My "favourite" example is the lady who came in with a new onsent irregular heart and shortness of breath. The consultant on was the Infectious Disease consultant, who incidentally had helped choose the antibiotic she had been on during her last admission.

For 3 days was treated for pneumonia, before coming up to my ward. I remembered her, and so ordered a stool sample to be tested. C. Difficile! So we started treatment.
Next day she went to HDU
Next day she died.

[Zain]

When the position being taken is ridiculous , when the poster continually contradicts himself , avoids questions and issues that completely undermine his point that he has carefully taken from crap websites , when he shown an ignorance of the very scriptures that he is claiming to be taking as a basis for his position then there is nothing to do other than ridicule .

And still your views aren't backed by anything you say. Still you only ridicule.

[Zain]

Silly little boy

Still ridiculing, eh? You have no life, as everyone here can see from your 4,800 posts!

[rory_20_uk]

Personal attacks (contrary to evidence ) are not allowed. Flame wars help no one and detract from the (generally) nice atmosphere.

Lead by example, turn the other cheek

So more , less

[Lemur]

Please continue with the personal attacks. Throw in some obscenities as well. Anything, anything to get this thread locked. Ten pages of people banging their heads against walls -- it makes me hurt just to look at it.

[Ser Clegane]

Anything, anything to get this thread locked.

Some patrons are certainly close to pushing this thread over the edge

If you are running out of arguments and have to resort to personal attacks you better take a break and refrain from posting.

Play it nice and this thread will be kept open.

Play it foul and this thread will be locked and ... yadda yadda ... serious consequences (you know the game)

[Mithrandir]

`hehe
This thread has no real purpose, at least not when it comes to convincing people to believe something different, throw all the wonders at me you can find and I'll still believe in the power of science and be as athe&#239;stic as one can be...

throw all the hard facts at a christian/muslim/jew/buddhist and they'll still believe Jahwe made it happen...

[Avicenna]

Say that to diehard Creationists and spelling it wrong like that, you might as well start writing your will now.

[doc_bean]

Really? How does the patient / family know? The doctors generally stick together, so will not say that they've mistreated you.

Well, a first wrong diagnosis nearly made me blind, a second one nearly killed me. I'm glad they don't all stick together and cover eachothers mistakes at any cost...

Actually, in both cases the original diagnosis was 'don't worry, nothing's wrong, it will stop by itself'. And people wonder why I don't thrust doctors much anymore

[rory_20_uk]

Doctors generally have legal insurance. And every few months (never bothered to work out how frequently) we get sent a magazine with some of the latest bloopers in it. People loose limbs, go blind, etc etc due to in some cases cringeworthy diagnosis. Although these are "learning points", I'm sure it's done to ensure we keep paying the fees.

[doc_bean]

People here hardly sue doctors though. I think it might have something to do with the continental legal system. Too bad I wasn't old enough to sue in either case