|
3 registered members (wandaluciaia, AndrewAMD, 1 invisible),
765
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68851
04/03/06 23:41
04/03/06 23:41
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Southern California, USA
GhostwriterDoF
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Southern California, USA
|
Heya Irish Farmer, a couple things about your extensive post... since you took the trouble to write all that out. heh! I think you may have overlooked cross breeding between species as a way of gaining new traits in genetics or blending genetics to arrive at a new species as a possibility. It is my belief this happened often with the dinosaurs and their predecessors. Don't you think it is far reaching to think that since scientists failed to produce life in a lab it is not a possibility? You should see my friends refridgerator and then talk about spontaneous life  Also the scientists did not wait a million years to see what popped up. Yes I know you made a point about this and it is true that in a matter of a few years whole attributes of a species might change before our very eyes but, the species most likely will not change into a new one. However you cannot deny that over millions of years whole ages of creatures have come and gone, leaving only remnants of their existence in the creatures of today, such as the shark and the alligators. You also seem to have a misconception of feathers and flight. There were creatures that existed that were covered in feathers but did not have wings nor did they fly. Bats as well are an example of a creature that flys and yet has no feathers. Fossils and forensics are teaching us new things all the time including these kind of misconceptions of what we think we know.
The rivers of time erode away the mountains of existence...
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Blattsalat]
#68852
04/04/06 01:01
04/04/06 01:01
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Ran Man
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
|
Quote:
@ranman:
-->and dear conitec, I want my 3 stars back again!...
Your wish was granted from a higher power .... me 
Hey cool! Thanks buddy!
Hey, wait a minute, THIS IS IMPORTANT! 
About the earth's tilt:
Do you guys know what it means? 
It means that there would be no more seasons!
If the tilt were not as it is, then the following could occur:
Russia, canada, northern europe and parts of the USA would be a forever ice cubes!
South America, Southern Africa and Australia would be a scorching desert!
Why not understand that this is a part of the creators plan for us?
And water is NOT a heat source, it just creates an "average" factor from the extremes, but it does not produce any heat. That's why we have "hot water" heaters in our homes! The SUN is the one that produces heat! 
And we expect crops to grow in the conditions above? That's absolutely ludicrious. 
Imagine if the earth had no tilt nor seasons?
Read about it HERE!
All I can say is you'd better thank your lucky stars, God or whatever, or else live like a frozen eskimo forever. Geez... 
Last edited by Ran Man; 04/04/06 01:05.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Ran Man]
#68853
04/04/06 06:11
04/04/06 06:11
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Ran, an argument like that won't do any good in a discussion like this. I don't want to rain on your parade, but you're wasting your breath if you're trying to change anyone's mind with this evidence. Quote:
I think you may have overlooked cross breeding between species as a way of gaining new traits in genetics or blending genetics to arrive at a new species as a possibility. It is my belief this happened often with the dinosaurs and their predecessors.
That's still begging the question. If we started out at the most basic of genetics (a single cell), and cross breeding is the only option left for positive mutations, then what does the most basic of DNA cross breed with? Materialist evolution still has no starting point.
First off, if animals are too genetically dissimilar, they either won't be able to breed for physical reasons, or they won't be able to breed for genetic reasons. So we're still dealing with pretty limited occurances here. However, we have witnessed many of these cross-breeds in real life that lead to interesting results. Typically however, cross breeding is associated with organisms of a species spreading traits around to a different species.
Of course, the idea of a species is kind of awkward when it comes to science. Because, if these different species can produce fertile hybrids, are they really different species? Actually it just goes a long way in showing that both of these species are just a branch from the same Kind of animal.
There are some more interesting examples, like I've said. For instance, the zeedonk. A zebra/donkey as the name implies.
This is actually further evidence of a 'master species' that I referenced in my long post. Or the idea that these animals are genetically similar enough because they descended from a greater kind of horse that had more inherit genetic variance than these animals now have (the variance in genetics was reduced due to natural selection, and specialization and led to distinct species of animals).
By the way, if you're a fan of Napoleon Dynamite, you'll be interested to know they've actually produced real-life ligers. Which are pretty much his favorite animal (I dislike that movie greatly).
This link is from a creationist website, but if you are interested in learning about these cross-breeds then I recommend you give it a click. Its the best (and most interesting) compilation of information on cross breeds I could find on short notice.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp
Cross breeding doesn't really lead to any new genetic data, however, which is required for the type of evolution talked about constantly by scientists (materialist evolution). For instance, if you mix purple orchids with white orchids, you get mixed color orchids (in other words the data for white and purple both show through, not some new data). You definately don't get orchids with feathers, however. I see what you mean, that these white orchids wouldn't have had the purple data to begin with, but if they're genetically similar enough to naturally produce hybrids then it only proves that they've come from a species that did have this variance, and that each color was specialized into a seperate species by natural selection, or some other natural device. The white and purple don't combine to create something truly, genetically new.
Cross breeding is limited by genetics, however, and so you can't say a bird mated with a lizard to give it wings (besides that you then have to wonder why lizards need to transition into a bird if the bird is already there).
I hope that explains it well enough, since I've managed to draw this post out into a novel by this point, too. Heh.
Quote:
Don't you think it is far reaching to think that since scientists failed to produce life in a lab it is not a possibility?
I think its a good thing that scientists are trying to create life in labs. For many people this will mean that God did not create life, but not for me. For me its simply a chance to gain a better understanding of life. Even if spontaneous creation of life is possible, it does not mean God did not create us, because then scientists still have to tackle the problem of materialist evolution. There will always be evidence of God, and I'm not going to be afraid of science since its a great tool for understanding the world around us.
But a lab is not the beginning of the world. Life in a test tube does not prove that it happened in a natural setting. The fact is, unless we revert the earth to its true origins (according to evolutionists) and sit around until life is spontaneously created and then evolves, we haven't disproved God. So I say, "Go ahead and create life in a lab." It will open new gateways to our understanding of life.
Quote:
However you cannot deny that over millions of years whole ages of creatures have come and gone, leaving only remnants of their existence in the creatures of today, such as the shark and the alligators.
I don't believe the earth is millions of years old, but I do believe that animals have come and gone (from the same starting point to varying other extinction points). However, it sounds like you're saying since sharks and alligators are 'primitive' they might show us evidence that we may have come from more basic life forms. That's only true if you believe we came from more primitive life forms to begin with. Since I can otherwise say, "These animals (or perhaps more generalized 'master specie') were created to be well adapted to the earth to survive." This isn't really relevant. For instance, there's so much proof against materialist evolution at this point, that sharks can fit into the creationist model of life without any problem. They were simply created (or a more generalized shark from the past was created) to be well suited to its environment. Not every animal needs to be as genetically advanced as humans. The shark is simply well created for the environment in which it lives.
Quote:
here were creatures that existed that were covered in feathers but did not have wings nor did they fly.
Fair enough, but I'd like to see these animals. Fossils, once again are tricky territory. We once thought the archaeopteryx wasn't a bird, but we know that more than likely it was simply a perching bird. Of course, we can never really say even that much for sure because these animals don't exist. Forensics are great, but they're no match for the observable. And as Darwin himself said,
"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
Of course, today we now know that any evolution that animals undergo is limited by their original genetics so this answer is simple. He didn't know that, because the theory of evolution was still in its infancy.
I believe that in his heart of hearts, Darwin was afraid that his observations were making the idea of God seem implausible. So he asked the right questions, even questioning his own ideas. Why can't scientists continue doing this nowadays, when we still lack the evidence?
Anyway, when we discover these 'missing links', we spend years and years revising our ideas about them. Usually it turns out their morphology is essential to their survival somehow, which simply shows that they are well developed, well adapted standalone species.
However, once again if all the evidence points towards materialist evolution being impossible, then can we really rely on supposedly million or billion or trillion year old relics to argue to the contrary? We can learn more by the observable world as it is today than by trying to make assumptions (unprovable) from relics of the past. The fact is, scientists make mistakes all the time. They may be the ones who fix them, but we can't count on fossils to prove something that can never be observed in nature. We need real proof.
In other words, if true transitional forms do not exist to this day, what makes us think these are transitional forms when we can't even observe the animal in its natural environment? Assumptions aren't proof.
Quote:
Bats as well are an example of a creature that flys and yet has no feathers.
I know, but in the context of the dinos-to-bird assumption scientists make, bats are irrelevant. I was focusing specifically on the birth of flight from the bird perspective. Bats are a whole other story.
Its getting late, so I hope I'm not rambling or that I'm at least making sense. I'm gonna go play some games before I head off to bed.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/04/06 06:15.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Blattsalat]
#68854
04/04/06 09:11
04/04/06 09:11
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
As to the earth rotation: I fail to see the point here. Almost all planets have a tilted axis. And even without a tilted axis you can survive and grow crops, as people on south sea islands without any noticeable seasons would confirm to you. Air and water currents produce a balanced climate on earth even without seasons. But indeed, you would not want to live in siberia or north canada then. The earth is favored not with its tilted axis, but with it's distance to the sun that is just suited for life - but only for a 100 million years more. Then the increased radiation from sun will render earth inhabitable. Ran Man: do I understand it right that you believe the earth, sun and its planets are only 6000 years old, but the other stars in the universe are billions of years old? Irish_Farmer: I'd answer your post about evolution, but at the length of almost 10 pages I'll need some time to read it first.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68855
04/04/06 10:56
04/04/06 10:56
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Matt, or Blatt, I want to see your responses to my lengthy post back there (also JCL and Marco, too). We need to quit running off on these wild goose chases of how important the tilt is. My post is in page 7 of this thread. Check it out.
That post is a just a long blathering of mumbo jumbo I'm not going to waste my time with beyond a few things. It's full of straw men, wrong conclusions, and frankly, complete misunderstanding of science. All of those arguments have been easily refuted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 1) This experiment, the Urey-miller experiment, is very old. In any case it did show that amino acids could form naturally under certain conditions. You take what is obviously evidence for the formation of life by natural means and twist it to be proof against it. Really smart, except you forgot that we aren't morons.
The fact is, we dont know exactly under what conditions life formed, there may have been oxygen, or something else in the atmosphere. Also, water can shield ultraviolet radiation far better than oxygen, so if we suppose that the life formed in water, we dont have any problems.
but if you dont believe any of that I'll make it just this: just because we dont know how life developed doesnt mean it didnt, and this certainly has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, which deals with species, not the original formation of life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3) "Every species on earth today (or in the past) evolved from one original self replicating cell. "
This is a straw man, because most scientists dont claim this. The current thinking is that cells became more and more complex, based on the assimilation of smaller forms.. such as the mitochondria, which may have been simpler organisms that lived symbiotically with a larger organism.
Vestigial organs dont show "devolutions", because in science there is no such thing. The loss of function is just evolution, like anything else. Furthermore, you cant just just say that, all "vestigial organs have now been shown to have a purpose". This is clearly not true(vestigial legs in snakes have no function), nor does it really explain anything, because it's known that the functions of organs can CHANGE over time.
Your section on speciation really makes no sense to me. You argue that speciation occurs, but this somehow proves that evolution doesnt occur? I think you dont understand Darwin.
Darwin concludes that the modern Galapagos finches evolved from an ancestor form themainland, that speciation can occur, and is directed by natural selection. The more favorable forms are "selected" because they allow the animal to live longer, to reproduce more succesfully, etc. Only a truly perverse mind can see this as an argument AGAINST evolution.
Your section on mutations is also deeply flawed. First, you have this idea that a beetle species that loses its wings is somehow "less than what is was originally". Nonsense: as said before, it is just different, not less or more. No organism is more or less than any other, they are all just different, and are adapted to live in whatever conditions they happen to be in.
In any case, mutation is a known, observeable fact. It occurs in all organisms that have genetic material, at the most basic level whenever a cell divides. There must be billions of mutations in a single organism's life cycle. Most mutations are indeed harmful or meaningless, and offer no selective benefit. But some must be favorable.
For instance, you bring up the sickle cell anemia trait, but you are wrong in your conclusion that this is a bad mutation. Obviously, it developed only in areas which had a risk of malaria, and since malaria is greater risk to life than sickle cell, it was a beneficial adaptation and was selected by later generations. However, when someone moves to an area where there is no malaria, then the adaptation is not beneficial, and probably will eventually dissappear in those populations that have moved. Again you twist an excellent example of evolutionary adaptation to be proof that against it. Even a child could see through this.
The point about the algae adapting to the dark, I dont see what your problem with this, excep that you seem to be using this as another straw man, becasue you state that "Why this is used as proof of materialist evolution? I’ll never know." I'm not sure that this IS used as any such proof. It does however, offer good evidence for the mechanism of mutation in evolution.
Quote:
Don’t these adaptations that show how slight variations within bounds can cause a species branch (or evolution within a kind) really prove that animals were created by an optimal designer
NO, they show no such thing. That conclusion is totally baseless, and indeed, you once again use evidence for evolution as evidence against it. Do you really think that people are that dumb? Or maybe you dont even understand your own argument..Unless this isn't your own arguement, and you just copy-and-pasted it from some retarded creationist website...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3) "Evolution takes millions of years."
Another bogus claim used as a straw man, or maybe it's based on total ignorance of both language and science. Evolution is a process that is ongoing--it takes niether millions of years nor any set length of time. Evolution is happening, in a small way, with evey generation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 4) "The fossil record proves evolution."
*Sigh*, again with the bad premise. No scientist says that fossil record "proves" evolution. Nothing proves evolution. The fossil record does give us evidence for evolution, because it shows many cases of species that resemble other species but have differnt traits, and show some intereesting gradsations between more established forms. For instance, the dinosaur to bird progression, is quite distinct and is very compelling. In fact, so compelling that it has prompted some scientists to say there is no clear line bewteen Aves and Archosauria, and that all Aves should also be considered archosaurs.
Also of great value are the many fossils of early tetrapods, including some that may not have been able to really live on land, but still lived alsmot as fishes.
I have said that fossils dont "prove" evolutions, and this is so. However, they do give us an extremely good picture of how evolution happened over the ages. And frankly, I find it far more interesting than your stupid arguements, and apparently so do many, many other poeple, witness the huge popularity of dinosaurs and paleontology.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68856
04/04/06 11:11
04/04/06 11:11
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
@Matt
I'm really impressed that someone is ready to spend their valuable time on explaining the obvious to someone who really doesn't want to understand.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68857
04/04/06 15:39
04/04/06 15:39
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Ran Man
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
|
@ Irish I appreciate your input and agree with you, but this thread is called "Science and Creation" and is not necessarily about evolution. Also, sorry but little things like the earths tilt for seasons interest me. I was thinking to bring up the facts of "created" nature as evidence? Quote:
The earth is favored not with its tilted axis, but with it's distance to the sun that is just suited for life
Yes, JCL brings up an excellent point. WHY is the sun just at the right distance to make life tollerable down here?!
Please consider more facts below:
Quote:
#1 The earth is positioned just the right distance from the sun so that we recieve just the right amount of heat to support life. The other planets in our solar system are either too close to the sun or too far away.
#2 The earth rotates which gives us our 24 hour day, any appreciable change in the rate of rotation would make life on earth impossible. If the earth were to rotate one tenth its present rate all plant life would be burned up during the day or frozen at night.
#3 Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of earth around the sun.
Temperature extremes are further moderated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which produce a green house effect.
#4 The moon revolves around earth at a distance of 24000 miles causing harmless tides. If the moon were located one fifth of this distance away, the continents would be under water twice a day.
#5 The earths axis is tilted at 23 and one half degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. this tilting combined with its revolution around the sun causes our seasons, which are assential to raising our food supplies.
#6 The ozone layer serves as a protective shield from ultraviolet radiation from the sun. without it all life would die. The atmosphere protects earth from some 20 million meteors that enter it each day, most burn up before hitting earth, if not danger to us would be immense.
The earth is the perfect physical size and mass to support life, affording a careful balance between gravitational forces and atmospheric pressure.
#7 The atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, a crucial and delicate ratio is essential to all life forms.
#8 The earths magnetic field provides protection from harmful cosmic radiation.
#9 The earth is blessed with a bountiful supply of water, which is essential to life here.
http://home.kc.rr.com/seekandsave/uniqueearth.html
Now, why do we just assume all this happens by chance?
That is quite an "illogical" assumption, considering all other planets in the galaxy are not anything like this.
Last edited by Ran Man; 04/04/06 15:39.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Ran Man]
#68859
04/04/06 16:34
04/04/06 16:34
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Now, why do we just assume all this happens by chance?
That is quite an "illogical" assumption, considering all other planets in the galaxy are not anything like this.
Well Ran Man, though you seem to evade my question about the age of the universe, your own question can very easily be answered:
Why is earth a special lucky planet? Because otherwise no one were there to complain.
Considering all factors that make earth habitable - the pamphlet you're quoting even left out a lot - there are probably about 10,000 earth like planets in our galaxy, and infinite many on the whole universe. And why do we have the unlikely luck to live on one of them? Think hard and I'm sure you'll find the answer.
If you want to look into some really interesting stuff about habitable planets - much more interesting than that boring creationist pamphlet - search with google for the "Drake Formula".
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Ran Man]
#68860
04/04/06 16:54
04/04/06 16:54
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Matt said: Quote:
That post is a just a long blathering of mumbo jumbo
Translation = It was too complicated and it gave him a headache. 
LOL HA! HA!! HA!!! Too funny!
Ran Man why dont you stop posting here, this is for grownups only. For one thing, you keep picking on things like "why is the sun at exactly the right distance", "why is the earth's axis at the right tilt.." and so on. Who cares? That's how it is, and life came to exist.
As I said before, even if Earth was farther from the sun, or the axis was different (as indeed it HAS been in the past) life may still have evolved, it might just have been a bit different. This is not an argument, it begs the question.
Furthermore, I found Irish Farmer's "paper" pedestrian if you must know, with no original thoughts, and some very faulty logic. The arguments were poorly constructed, and often used straw men, false premises and so on.
Irish Farmer, I suppose you mean well, but frankly you cant just keep piling bad argument on top of bad argument and hope it will turn into a good argument.
All you seem to want to do is find little things you find inconsistent about Darwinian evolution, or find things that really cant be explained, or even worse, try to attack claims that science doesnt make in the first place.
This is the same thing when someone says, "evolutionists say poeple evolved from apes..bullcrap, I'm not an ape" ..The fact is no "evolutionist" says that. We had a common ancestor with apes, that's all. They just happen to be our closest living relative...
So explain to me why we share 96% of DNA with chimpanzees? Sure it could be pure coincidence, it could be a hoax perpetrated by evil scientist atheists, they could just be wrong, etc. But the fact is, I find this far more pursuasive than anything you people have posted--most sane poeple would. Genetics are are pretty cut-and-dried.
Which leads me to another point: why is that creationists have no research or findgin of thier own tpo support thier views? It seems all they can do is try tp pick apart the work of thousands of real scientists. Why in the hell should anyone believe you? Are you somehow right, when everyone else is wrong.
Because if evolution is wrong, you have to throw out all modern phylogenies (cladistic method, etc.), genetics research, paleontology, geology, etc. What do you have left? Nothing really.. is that the kind of world you people want to live in, one where you simply CANT undertsand anything?
|
|
|
|
