Evidence for creationism

[PeteAtoms]

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.

1) Aren't mules incapable for mating and producing offspring?
2) Insects underwater... mmmm, I don't think so. Some, but definitely not most of them.
3) Fish and amphibians? So was the flood fresh water or salt water? Explanation please?

 

[Cynovolans]

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

And because of the differences in chromosome numbers a second generation is very improbable.

EDITeteAtoms beat me to it.

 

[Seon]

You fail.


/thread over.

Come back when you can deny this post, dom. Seriously...

 

[Traitorfish]

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

Mules are sterile hybrids. They are not even a distinct species.

 

[Ajidica]

Domination, given that microevolution gave us all the different breeds of dogs, could you trace back the genetic code and tell me which one was the breed of dog Noah brought onboard the arc?

Science tells us it is a chinese dog, but the arc didn't land in China.

 

[Berzerker]

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?

I didn't mention evolution and I didn't say the flood story was true - I challenged the notion of a world covering Flood. Your clueless rant didn't address anything I said, but at least you're consistent Dont quote me any more, and go back and edit that mess of a post - you're responding to other people and you dont identify them.

 

[kiwitt]

I don't think the Bible should be taken "literally", and it should be seen as "writings" meant for another age. I think there was really no reason for them to place all the writings from the various periods into one book, accept as a way to consolidate and rationalise the various books that were in circulation.

As to evidence for creation. According to the Bible it is quite simple "God created us", is evidence enough for those who believe. If you do not believe in God, the burden of proof is far higher, as you need to to also get past "how does God exist ?" and many other related questions.

But these questions are wasted on "believers". Their "narrow" view of the world and the filter they use to mask out "millions" of pieces of evidence contrary to their belief, will ensure that it is ignored, makes arguing with them an entertaining but futile discussion.

 

[History_Buff]

As to evidence for creation. According to the Bible it is quite simple "God created us", is evidence enough for those who believe. If you do not believe in God, the burden of proof is far higher, as you need to to also get past "how does God exist ?" and many other related questions.

Except that that is not evidence at all. I could similarly say we all actually live in the Matrix, but saying it does not make it so. Nor does a lot of people sharing my opinion without evidence; like we've told Dommy many a time, the plural of anecdote is not fact.

 

[Trev]

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.

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.

The pairs on the ark would have been the same kind with same number of chromosones etc, but considerable variation in the DNA of each animal allowing breeding and a wide variety in the offspring in the first generation. As they spread over the earth, the DNA variety of each breeding group is quickly reduced to what was in the small number of individuals that founded each group. The result is substantial fixed differences in each breeding group which quickly become separate species where interbreeding between groups was prevented by distance etc.
As the DNA variation in the species is now far less than previously, a repeat of low numbers and isolation will not again generate the number of species that occurred in the past, so any experimentation along those lines would fail.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Interestingly, there are less than 18,000 species of land animals alive today.

That is so AMAZINGLY wrong it's not even funny

but I guess the Creatonists look at their Bible and they're like "Yep, two cattle, two sheep, two horses, two cats, two dogs... what did we forget? Oh right two goats, two pigs, two chickens, two donkeys. All right, that's the entire biosphere right there! Let's go Noah!"

Not really going to argue with the kid who thinks mules are a species and frogs can survive at the bottom of the ocean. You must go to the worst high school ever

 

[Methos]

I don't think the Bible should be taken "literally", and it should be seen as "writings" meant for another age.

It is my understanding that the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally and that Biblical literalists is something that is very young (within the past century or two). I disagree on your "meant for another age". How can moral teachings be defined by era?

I think there was really no reason for them to place all the writings from the various periods into one book, accept as a way to consolidate and rationalise the various books that were in circulation.

Agree and what's worse, is they declared the Bible as canon, meaning no book can be added or removed. I also recall Jesus instructing His Disciples to go out and teach the Word, not just publish it and hope others buy the book and read it.

As to evidence for creation. According to the Bible it is quite simple "God created us", is evidence enough for those who believe. If you do not believe in God, the burden of proof is far higher, as you need to to also get past "how does God exist ?" and many other related questions.

The Bible is not a Biology textbook, or any other textbook for that matter, so I find it odd that people believe it is.

But these questions are wasted on "believers". Their "narrow" view of the world and the filter they use to mask out "millions" of pieces of evidence contrary to their belief, will ensure that it is ignored, makes arguing with them an entertaining but futile discussion.

The same thing can be said about their reading/understanding of the Bible. Jesus Himself states that he kept the mysteries for his Disciples and/or those who were ready for them, yet rather then contemplate what that means, people instead argue over the wording. Odd.

 

[Tacitusitis]

The pairs on the ark would have been the same kind with same number of chromosones etc, but considerable variation in the DNA of each animal allowing breeding and a wide variety in the offspring in the first generation. As they spread over the earth, the DNA variety of each breeding group is quickly reduced to what was in the small number of individuals that founded each group. The result is substantial fixed differences in each breeding group which quickly become separate species where interbreeding between groups was prevented by distance etc.
As the DNA variation in the species is now far less than previously, a repeat of low numbers and isolation will not again generate the number of species that occurred in the past, so any experimentation along those lines would fail.

The fact that even when we waive all the science pointing to billions of years of gradual evolution and the absence of a recent global cataclysm/genetic bottleneck, the best explanation you can come up with IS STILL a very silly just-so-story, is a bold testament to the intellectual vigor of creationism

 

[Tacitusitis]

The Bible is not a Biology textbook

Yes it is. It advances a theory about human origins. It also makes various statements about natural history that, taken as a whole, represent a coherently argued cosmology.

What you really mean is "The Bible is a very bad Biology textbook." No argument there.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

1. God spoke to Noah

[...]

/thread over.

Excellent Just a little over optimistic in your finale.

The pairs on the ark would have been the same kind with same number of chromosones etc, but considerable variation in the DNA of each animal allowing breeding and a wide variety in the offspring in the first generation. As they spread over the earth, the DNA variety of each breeding group is quickly reduced to what was in the small number of individuals that founded each group. The result is substantial fixed differences in each breeding group which quickly become separate species where interbreeding between groups was prevented by distance etc.
As the DNA variation in the species is now far less than previously, a repeat of low numbers and isolation will not again generate the number of species that occurred in the past, so any experimentation along those lines would fail.

Do you have anything to back this up, or can I dismiss all of this?

Instead of "would have been" I want to read "evidence shows" with proper support. If not, I could just as easily propose: quite possibly aliens teleported lots of water to the Earth as an experiment of what would happen in a global warming event. First they teleported pairs of lots of animals to a zoo-planet, then flooded the Earth, drained it and put the animals back again.

Now, notice how I provided as much evidence as you have, so as a result, my theory is as scientifically sound as yours.

 

[Arakhor]

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.

Do you actually know anything about inbreeding? Two of any species, hell, even 14 of any species, is not enough to ensure safe genetic diversity.

 

[kiwitt]

I disagree on your "meant for another age". How can moral teachings be defined by era?

I am referring more to the method as opposed to the message given.

yet rather then contemplate what that means, people instead argue over the wording. Odd.

Agreed

The message is simple - "Love", yet there are 1,000's of interpretations of small details and this has put me of religions for good.

So for me, I have given up on anything Bible related and focused on one essential principle; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Which from what I have garnered from virtually all other religions is one of their cornerstones.

That fact that they kill and taunt others because they are different, and place equal wait to every different detail, this one principle gets lost in the volume, where if they truly weighted every detail with it's correct weight, the above principle weigh higher than all others.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Domination, given that microevolution gave us all the different breeds of dogs, could you trace back the genetic code and tell me which one was the breed of dog Noah brought onboard the arc?

Science tells us it is a chinese dog, but the arc didn't land in China.

Well, I suppose its still possible and that it just went back to China. But I'm sure there were 2 types and 1 of each.

Do you actually know anything about inbreeding? Two of any species, hell, even 14 of any species, is not enough to ensure safe genetic diversity.

And I'm quite sure some things died out.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

"I suppose", "it's still possible" and "I'm quite sure" does not equal evidence.

 

[bathsheba666]

Well, I suppose its still possible and that it just went back to China. But I'm sure there were 2 types and 1 of each.



And I'm quite sure some things died out.

Please define for us exactly what "sure" means on planet Dommy.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I didn't mention evolution and I didn't say the flood story was true - I challenged the notion of a world covering Flood. Your clueless rant didn't address anything I said, but at least you're consistent Dont quote me any more, and go back and edit that mess of a post - you're responding to other people and you dont identify them.

So your response to another poster completely demolishing your POV is that they're wrong, you're right, case closed. He did destroy what you were quoted by him as saying (i.e. your actual words) and from memory (which is good enough for the arguement if not direct quoting) it has been your whole point all along, and this quote from Tacitiustis (Sp?) post you're arguing is wrong, neatly spells out the logical fallacy inherent in both your arguement and the world-view of YECcers in general: " 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."

As long as the data supports your arguement, in other words, it's ok but when it goes against it it's bad. This has been your argument style all along, to claim your one or two anecdotes as conclusive proof and then turn around and claim the whole mountain of actual eviedence is both fallacious and inconclusive.

So there we have it; a complete and thorough evaluation of the available evidence to put together a theory which best fits that evidence is beaten by a hybuttesis which examines none of the evidence and explains none of the facts simply because someone thousands of years ago wrote a fable based on what he thought god was telling him. Brilliant arguement just brilliant, worthy of such a cunning person as:

Spoiler :

Link to video.
And I don't mean Edmund Blackadder.