Evidence for creationism

[Traitorfish]

There seems to be too much variation in spiders for it to all be the result of one kind, quite possibly there where maybe 10 - 50 kinds on Noah's ark rather than one kind and the 40,000 or so species came from those 10 - 50 kinds. In the first century or so after the flood, the spiders and other life would have spread rapidly from Asia to the rest of the world, each mating pair would have pretty well isolated themselves from others of their kind, which means that many mating pairs from the first and second generations after the flood would have founded separate species with only a subset of the DNA from the original pairs kept on the ark. Likewise for all other insect, mammal, bird, reptile species etc. So there would have been an extremely rapid diversification of species for a few decades and centuries, followed by a stagnation once life had spread to all land areas of the planet.

What.

 

[El_Machinae]

Trev is then hypothesising evolutionary events that happen at a much faster rate than we have observed. And there's an important prediction, too. We should be able to find ancient spider corpses and show that their DNA has drastically altered in the last few thousand years.

 

[SuperJay]

By this kind of "hyperevolution" logic, you could actually find a spider in your garage and keep it in a glass jar for a week or so, and watch it hyper-evolve before your very eyes.

I think AskthePizzaGuy pretty much won the thread. YEC seems to deny that evolution is possible, but simultaneously embrace this 'hyper-evolution' concept.

I don't think believing in God or being a devout Christian automatically means evolution cannot exist, right? (Aka, not all Christians are YECers) so embracing science and logic doesn't preclude a devout belief in God. The two can coexist; religion doesn't cancel science or vice versa.

 

[Tacitusitis]

or maybe the Flood didn't really cover the tallest mountains, or the world The Bible (and mesopotamian) version describes a wave(s) inundating the land - the fountains of the deep refers to the ocean surging onto the land. And if this is related to the rising seas as the ice age ended then maybe part of the Antarctic ice sheet slipped off into the water, or an impact in the Indian Ocean... A Tlingit legend dates the Great Flood to 14 kya, thats close to a known flood called meltwater pulse 1a resulting from the partial break up of the southern ice sheet as the ice age ended, or causing it to end.

lolwat

So one data point can be picked to support your idea, but the scientific consensus that is formed from many data points can be safely ignored.

Evolution must be wrong, but "microevolution" that works far faster than any observed evolution, creating millions of species in a few thousand years, is ok because that is the post-hoc explanation needed to make the Ark story true.

Do you guys get a sense of how ridiculous you sound?

You counter with science and get: "Well, probably ..." or "There must have been ..." or "They could have ...". Which is, say it with me children, made up. It's reasoning drawn from the butt to justify hanging on to a belief.

exactly

I have a new word for this: hybutthesis. Verb, hybutthesize; use in a sentence:

They still do, at least in England. The similarities between English and German and the fact that, if they tried carefully, someone speaking Spanish can understand Italian is proof that the Tower of Babel story actually happened.

What a wonderful hybutthesis. You definitely remembered to take into account the common origin of all Romance languages in Latin and the fact that English is essentially German with French and Latin admixture and a recognizably modern English only appeared in the last 500 years. Your hybutthesis is a credit to creationism.

Trev is then hypothesising evolutionary events that happen at a much faster rate than we have observed.

INCORRECT USAGE, 5000 POINTS FROM GRYFFINDOR

 

[El_Machinae]

"Hypothesis" is correct, because it's a yes/no question that can be answered

 

[Tacitusitis]

"Hypothesis" is correct, because it's a yes/no question that can be answered

You correctly defined hypothesis.

An explanation that was created solely as a post-hoc ass-pull, just-so-story justification of prior belief, that the believer will never bother to put to a test that could risk disproving it, is not a hypothesis. It is a hybutthesis.

Since Trevor is not rushing out to test his ingenious theory of forty monogamously loyal mating pairs of spiders that somehow made it to every corner of the globe and rapidly speciated over the course of thousands of years into 40,000 species, I feel confident labelling his idea a hybutthesis.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I have a new word for this: hybutthesis. Verb, hybutthesize; use in a sentence:

If this doesn't get into next year's edition of the OED then there is something serious wrong with the world. Genius, my man, Genius!

 

[Ajidica]

If this doesn't get into next year's edition of the OED then there is something serious wrong with the world. Genius, my man, Genius!

If Sarah Palin can get a word she accidently created into the OED, then you can to.

 

[GoodGame]

Dinosaurs had feathers?

Spoiler :

Nah, must be as fake as the Turin Shroud!

Moderator Action: Please put HUGE images in spoilers. Thanks.

Thanks.


Interesting EM-based article. "see" the colors of the feathers using the power of electrons.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/02/fossil_feather_colors_are_writ.php

 

[BasketCase]

But then where did all the millions of species that Noah didn't know of come from? This argument makes absolutely no sense.

Also simple: nobody knew of those species when the Bible was written. Which was a couple thousand years ago. Of course it's not making sense to you, because you're examining the book in the wrong context.

 

[GhostWriter16]

By this kind of "hyperevolution" logic, you could actually find a spider in your garage and keep it in a glass jar for a week or so, and watch it hyper-evolve before your very eyes.

I think AskthePizzaGuy pretty much won the thread. YEC seems to deny that evolution is possible, but simultaneously embrace this 'hyper-evolution' concept.

I don't think believing in God or being a devout Christian automatically means evolution cannot exist, right? (Aka, not all Christians are YECers) so embracing science and logic doesn't preclude a devout belief in God. The two can coexist; religion doesn't cancel science or vice versa.

There are theistic evolutionists yes, and yes that's a fully legitimate view, but I don't feel it lines up too well with the Bible, at least not as literally as I like to interpret it.

We say MICRO evolution happens over a period of thousands of years, but we deny macroevolution happens at all.

 

[kiwitt]

Also simple: nobody knew of those species when the Bible was written. Which was a couple thousand years ago. Of course it's not making sense to you, because you're examining the book in the wrong context.

But the Bible is the "Word of God" ... is it not and God is not wrong.

Oh ... that's right, he left things out because it was written for another time ... God created "gaps" in knowledge, which he now fills (God of the Gaps).

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Also simple: nobody knew of those species when the Bible was written. Which was a couple thousand years ago. Of course it's not making sense to you, because you're examining the book in the wrong context.

How are we looking at things wrongly, by being part of the reality-based community? If so how do I get myself into the frame of mind of a member of the fantasy-based community? I would like to know.

 

[Seon]

There are theistic evolutionists yes, and yes that's a fully legitimate view, but I don't feel it lines up too well with the Bible, at least not as literally as I like to interpret it.

We say MICRO evolution happens over a period of thousands of years, but we deny macroevolution happens at all.

Yet you must believe in hyper-super-mega-duper-pokemon style evolution, or else you must believe that the Noah's barge was the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer in order to fit all the different species of spiders, Orangutans, lemurs, cats, bears, elephants, doves, parrots, ostriches, dog, giraffes, gazelles, dears, beetles, scorpions, bees, wasps, sheep, pig, llama, guinea pig, rat, big rat, mice, squirrel, chipmunks, ground hog, naked mole rats, pikachus, amoebas, bacterias, monkies, bats, ostriches, moles, herons, and so on and on and on and on and on and on and on AND ALSO enough food to feed all of these animals. Both of these contradict the bible. (Genesis 6:15 ).

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, the ark could have hypothetically happened anywhere from 4,000 to 18,000 years ago (And Young Earth Creationism still work.) I say somewhere between 6-8,000 years ago personally.

And remember, this is only evolution within a species. So we will have two dogs, two cats, two monkeys, exc. and then micro worked from there.

Remember though, the two didn't have to be from the same species. For instance, as a random example, a wolf and a house dog could have been the two dogs, and they could have created all the dogs we know today over in 2,000 years easily.

 

[PeteAtoms]

And remember, this is only evolution within a species. So we will have two dogs, two cats, two monkeys, exc. and then micro worked from there.

*cough-cough* Microevolution is the same as (Macro)evolution. Same exact process.

 

[Ajidica]

And remember, this is only evolution within a species. So we will have two dogs, two cats, two monkeys, exc. and then micro worked from there.

My biology knowledge may be failing me, but aren't classifications of animals set up as genus-species? Species is a specific, final catagory, not an overaching term.

Furthermore, what was the original dog that Noah had on the arc?

 

[Seon]

Well, the ark could have hypothetically happened anywhere from 4,000 to 18,000 years ago (And Young Earth Creationism still work.) I say somewhere between 6-8,000 years ago personally.

And remember, this is only evolution within a species. So we will have two dogs, two cats, two monkeys, exc. and then micro worked from there.

Remember though, the two didn't have to be from the same species. For instance, as a random example, a wolf and a house dog could have been the two dogs, and they could have created all the dogs we know today over in 2,000 years easily.

=

??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

That, and ALL OTHER SPECIES OF DOGS IN LESS THAN 2000 YEARS?!

It seems as if you are digging yourself into a swamp and then asking us to fill up the hole you made with concrete.

 

[kiwitt]

Noah's barge ... size

The ark has the same cargo capacity of a modern cargo ship. The above figure shows a comparison with a 550 ft long cargo ship. The ark had a volume of 1.4 million cubic feet and a gross tonnage of 14,000 tons. This is the equivalent of 522 railroad box cars. The ark could have carried over 125,000 sheep-sized animals. Interestingly, there are less than 18,000 species of land animals alive today. Also, the average size of most animals is less than that of a sheep.

LINK

Hmmm ... it may be possible to fit 2 of each species if they did not get the number (18,000) Wrong

Category Species Totals
Vertebrate Animals
Mammals 5,490
Birds 9,998
Reptiles 9,084
Amphibians 6,433
Fishes 31,300
Total Vertebrates 62,305
**********************
Invertebrate Animals
Insects 1,000,000
Spiders and scorpions 102,248
Molluscs 85,000
Crustaceans 47,000
Corals 2,175
Others 68,827
Total Invertebrates 1,305,250
***************************
Plants
Flowering plants (angiosperms) 281,821
Conifers (gymnosperms) 1,021
Ferns and horsetails 12,000
Mosses 16,236
Red and green algae 10,134
Total Plants 321,212
****************************
Others
Lichens 17,000
Mushrooms 31,496
Brown algae 3,067
Total Others 51,563
TOTAL SPECIES 1,740,330

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, we can get a mule in ONE GENERATION by horse and donkey.

Also a note, there were no fish or plants on the ark, and its likely there were no insects either (IIRC they can survive underwater.)

And for all we know, all the Amphibians were probably still in water at the time.