The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
tinabyte said:
Evolution is just our scientific attempt to understand how life was created.
Click to expand...
"Created" in what sense? Created by God? Created by intelligence? It's difficult to ascertain your context of creation here.
tinabyte said:
Asking whether the creation is more scientifically valid than our attempt to understand it through science is silly.
Click to expand...
I suggest you take a look at the first post of the thread to understand the context in which are debating. This thread is meant to be an avenue where antievolutionary creationism can be debated. You seem to be trying to put on a different spin to the word "creation" which is fine, but is outside the context of the thread.
 
El_Machinae said:
There are other places in the history of the Flood that refer to the creatures in the Ark being 'male and female'. The fact that there are 'crawling things' on the Earth that are NOT 'male and female' proves this part of the Scripture false.
Click to expand...

I thought the entire flood story proved itself false :)

Of all the things young earth creationists believe the flood story is the weirdest for me. There's nothing, absolutely nothing in that story that makes any sense in terms of life as we know it.
 
El_Machinae said:
There are other places in the history of the Flood that refer to the creatures in the Ark being 'male and female'. The fact that there are 'crawling things' on the Earth that are NOT 'male and female' proves this part of the Scripture false.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they were not significant enough to be mentioned or they just hitched a ride on flotsam.

So what was your prediction about the presence of an appendix in a newly discovered primate that you hinted at a few pages ago? Let me guess. If the primate is discovered in certain geographical areas, there will be one, and not in others (new world/madagascar). But if there is one where there shouldn't be, then the animal is retaining a vestigial trait that others lack, and if there isn't one where it should be then the vestigial trait has disappeared. (Of course if the appendix isn't vestigial, but instead a new developing organ then you'll have to change the logic accordingly.) So the appendix will either be there or not in any case as evolution always correctly predicts. It's a wonder since evolution can explain everything (or anything) that it is so largely ignored by the dueling banjo players out there.

On an aside, what do think about the possibility of surgically adding a better appendix, maybe synthetic with the appropriate bacteria, so humans can digest cellulose efficiently thus widening our available food supply?
 
Here's something I found in the book Galileo's Children. This is a quote from Galileo Galilei. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forgo their use.
 
Phlegmak said:
Here's something I found in the book Galileo's Children. This is a quote from Galileo Galilei. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forgo their use.
Click to expand...

He was probably one of the most intellegent men for his era. At least he could see through these things even though he still was christian.

And christians at those times were fanatics compared to most today.
 
Stile said:
Perhaps they were not significant enough to be mentioned or they just hitched a ride on flotsam.
Click to expand...
Asexually reproducing species account for most of life on this planet. Now, are we to assume the sequoias hitched a ride on flotsam too?
So what was your prediction about the presence of an appendix in a newly discovered primate that you hinted at a few pages ago? Let me guess. If the primate is discovered in certain geographical areas, there will be one, and not in others (new world/madagascar). But if there is one where there shouldn't be, then the animal is retaining a vestigial trait that others lack, and if there isn't one where it should be then the vestigial trait has disappeared. (Of course if the appendix isn't vestigial, but instead a new developing organ then you'll have to change the logic accordingly.) So the appendix will either be there or not in any case as evolution always correctly predicts. It's a wonder since evolution can explain everything (or anything) that it is so largely ignored by the dueling banjo players out there.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the distribution of appendices in primates, but it's easy to list plenty of potential observations that would wreck present evolutionary models - a primate with feathers, say. Now, say something that if observed would wreck your creation scenario.
 
Stile said:
Perhaps they were not significant enough to be mentioned or they just hitched a ride on flotsam.
Click to expand...

Dude; it says every creature was male and female. It also said that all creatures that crawl went onto the boat. Pretty specific language.

But ... thanks for replying! I was afraid my question would be drowned out.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Asexually reproducing species account for most of life on this planet. Now, are we to assume the sequoias hitched a ride on flotsam too?
Click to expand...

:shake: I expected better from you. The sequoias were the flotsam, don't you know anything?
 
Well, that's how it is, anyway. All plants built structures of little islands on the sequioia flotsam structures. That's how plants survived.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Asexually reproducing species account for most of life on this planet. Now, are we to assume the sequoias hitched a ride on flotsam too?

I don't know about the distribution of appendices in primates, but it's easy to list plenty of potential observations that would wreck present evolutionary models - a primate with feathers, say. Now, say something that if observed would wreck your creation scenario.
Click to expand...
I don't know if a crawling sequoia would wreck the Theory of Creation, but it would be cool to see.
 
From here.

classical_hero said:
If abiogenesis is true then why don't we see it happening now?
Click to expand...
Because the conditions of early Earth no longer exist.

classical_hero said:
There has been no observation of it happening and it is only every an hypothesis. We have never seen any life come from non life, all we have seen.
Click to expand...
It has been partially observed, certain bits and pieces of abiogenesis have been observed. It doesn't make it a conclusive complete theoeretical framework but it makes the idea scientific and worthy of study.

classical_hero said:
The problem is that we had an experiment that tried to prove Abiogenesis, namely the Urey-Millery Experiment. It appears that the experiment actually disproves this. Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
Click to expand...
Incomplete evdience is not disproof. Subsequent experiments added to the number of amino acids that could be produced abiotically. Note that for abiogenesis to be correct, not all amino acids have to be synthesised. It's quite possible that early organisms used less and then evolved the ability to produce additional ones.

classical_hero said:
The problem is how a complex organism can come form something that is uncomplicated, from a molecular POV because the mysteries of the way how cells work are so great that even using superhigh powered computers are having difficulty understanding a process that our bodies do thousands of times a day. It takes us massive effort for us to even understand the simplest of tasks that our body does, namely the folding of proteins.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how the amount of calculation required to fully describe protein folding matters. Modeling organic reactions require big nasty equations, so does lots of things in science and engineering. Weather requires big supercomputers but we don't argue that God must have made that tornado over there, rather we say that it was the product of a weather system which is too complex for us to completely model.

classical_hero said:
This is a highly specialist task of the cells of the body that even if one thing goes wrong in this process that a major problem happens.
Click to expand...
Not always, lots of things can change and the results are similar. Somethimes things change and the result is better.

classical_hero said:
Even evolutionists are saying that the evidence does not stack up for abiogenesis. Perhaps the major problem is that most important thing we need fo life right now and that is Oxygen. Oxygen is vital to life but it is impossible for Abiogenesis because it breaks down the amino acids used for life, so the body can use them. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3630/
Click to expand...
You're confusing oxygen the element with oxygen gas. Oxygen gas is what breaks down amino acids, oxygen the element is what is required for life. You can get the element oxygen without oxygen gas in chemicals like water and carbon dioxide, in fact all sorts of microscopic life live quite comfortably without oxygen gas.
 
Perfection said:
You're confusing oxygen the element with oxygen gas. Oxygen gas is what breaks down amino acids, oxygen the element is what is required for life. You can get the element oxygen without oxygen gas in chemicals like water and carbon dioxide, in fact all sorts of microscopic life live quite comfortably without oxygen gas.
Click to expand...
Added for completeness:

Some microbial lifeforms die if exposed to macroscopic amounts of molecular oxygen (= what Perf is calling oxygen gas). Not only this; there's pretty much universal scientific agreement that tolerance to molecular oxygen is the derived state, and thus the first organisms were intolerant to molecular oxygen.

Conveniently, geology tells us that the atmosphere was close to free from molecular oxygen during the early history of life.
 
ironduck said:
There's a theory of creation? Could you sum it up?
Click to expand...

I noticed something:
Religionists are always loathe to come out and just say they think a big guy
with a white beard made the universe...Which is obviously what they believe.
But they never get around to saying this, but try and sound scientific, and
give cleverly worded statements that skirt around their basic ideology...

Could it be that they are worried they will be merely laughed at if they offer
their 'big guy with a white beard' angle to logical and atheist thinkers...?

.
 
CurtSibling said:
Could it be that they are worried they will be merely laughed at if they offer
their 'big guy with a white beard' angle to logical and atheist thinkers...?
.
Click to expand...
"Big Guy with a white beard" sounds a lot like Hollywood version of God. Just as in the devil is "A horned red guy with a pitchfork" who is the keeper of the underworld. Of course these are silly.

Hollywood version of evolution is also very silly... anyone here watch the new NBC series called "Heroes"?
Men evolved the ability to fly without wings, a cheerleader who regenerates in seconds, a crazy woman with a split personality (now that sounds very possible :) ) , etc.
 
Fossil fish found on Australia, 380ma: yet another "missing link". One of those things that it was predicted by evolution that it would be found, and then it was found!
Spoiler the article :
Source: The Independent (Friday 20 October 2006)
Home > News > World > Australasia
Ancient fish fossil provides missing link in evolution of land animals
By Kathy Marks in Sydney
Published: 20 October 2006
The discovery of a 380 million-year-old fossil in a remote region of Western Australia has given scientists new insight into the process by which fish evolved into land animals.

The perfect skeleton of the Gogonasus fish was found preserved in limestone during an expedition organised by Melbourne's Museum Victoria.

"It looks like it died yesterday," said the expedition leader, John Long. "You can still open and close the mouth."

Dr Long said the fossil demonstrated that fish developed the anatomical features of four-legged land creatures, or tetrapods, much earlier than once thought. Other specimens from that era had been incomplete, or squashed flat. This one was complete and three-dimensional, enabling palaentologists to analyse it in greater detail.

Gogonasus, which swam in an ancient reef system before there was life on land, had a large hole in its skull and a fin strong enough to support its body weight. "It's definitely a fish," Dr Long told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "It's got gills, it swims in water, it's got fins. But it's a fish that is showing the beginnings of the tetrapod's advanced body plan that would eventually carry on to all living land animals."

The skeleton, which he called "the most perfect, complete, three-dimensional fish of its kind ever discovered in the whole world", was found in the rugged Kimberley region, in a fossil area known as the Gogo site. In 1985 Dr Long discovered a snout and skull fragment of the same species there. He named it Gogonasus, which means "snout from Gogo".

The latest specimen was found by Tim Senden, a member of the team that went on the expedition in July last year. Dr Senden, who was on his first field trip, told the Melbourne Herald-Sun that he did not initially appreciate its significance. "I was the lucky one that picked up the right rock," he said. "It was the thrill of a lifetime."

It took Dr Long four months to extract the fossil from the limestone. It was then analysed, using new software technology developed by Dr Senden, at the Australian National University in Canberra.

Dr Long, who reported the team's findings online yesterday in the journal Nature, said that analysis of the limited specimens previously available had suggested that Gogonasus had quite primitive features. But the new fossil - which has gone on display at Museum Victoria - demonstrated that it was "hiding a lot of deceptively advanced features that were not recognised before, until we had such a perfect specimen". Dr Long added: "This particular fish is a bit like a wolf in sheep's clothing."

The hole in the skull is believed to be an early version of the middle ear in land animals. Gogonasus's pectoral fin had the same bone pattern as tetrapod forelimbs. It also had a single pair of nostrils, like those of humans.

The transition from fish living and breathing in water to animals with arms and legs, living on land and breathing air, is a key stage in the history of evolution.

Dr Long believes that Gogonasus is more closely related to tetrapods than another fish, Eusthenopteron, which was considered the common ancestor of all land animals. "It's replaced Eusthenopteron as the best fish to use when studying the ancestry of the first tetrapods," he said.

Another ancient species, Tiktaalik, which was discovered this year, is the most amphibian-like fish identified so far. Dr Long said many questions remained , such as the manner in which fin rays evolved into digits.
Carlos, any comments or insights? :)
 
Couple points; Eusthenopteron, while important as a model for tetrapod ancestors, definitely is on a cousin branch and not directly ancestral, and between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (which, more or less, defines the beginning of Tetrapoda) probably goes a number of poorly known forms like Livoniana, Elginerpeton, and Ventastega.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll
Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?
13 14 15
Replies
299
Views
9K
Narz
Narz
Kyriakos
Good examples of literary twists (thread may contain spoilers)
Replies
18
Views
1K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
DaggerDigwillow
What are the best value purchases you’ve made in life?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
Taefin
Second Impressions: More than the sum of its parts.
Replies
8
Views
1K
Taefin
Taefin
Broken_Erika
Random Rants 94 I rant at the thread title and shake my fist menacingly.
23 24 25
Replies
483
Views
21K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
Top Bottom