Evidence for creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Domination3000, I am calling you out. :ninja:

If you ignore any of these points, then you're admitting you have no idea what you're talking about and you're reflexively defending an idea that you can't actually defend when someone calls you on your factual errors. So why bother continue posting?

Until you respond to this, I'm going to ask every single person who replies to you to link back to this post, so you will remember that everything you say is not being taken seriously until you finally address these points.



Point number 1:

Two animals is not enough genetic diversity for a species to survive. That is why when pandas get down to enough that you can count them on your hands, that's the end of pandas.
  • Do you understand this?




Point number 2:

All animals on board the ark need to eat, for a long period of time on a rickety ship in the middle of the greatest storm EVER. Noah would have had to get a whole bunch of live animals for the predators to eat, so you have to make room for that, and there also needs to be great big bales of hay for the cows and all kinds of matter for the Horses and Zebra and everything else under the sun. Some kinds of foods don't keep during the journey, because there's no such thing as refrigeration. The animals that are used as food also need to eat. Feces and urine are EVERYWHERE. Noah would need to have separate compartments for each breeding pair. What if one of them got sick and died? What if some got loose and ate one of the unicorns? (Oh....) What if one of the animals were sterile?

  • How could the ark support the weight of tens of thousands of different species, their food and the other animals they would have had to eat? What did Noah do with all of that urine and fecal matter? Most of the ship is underwater, did he spend all that time carrying gigantic buckets filled with excrement to the top deck?

  • How did the tens of thousands of different species radiate into the millions of species we know of today without evolution?
  • If you say God's magic, you're admitting this is all nonsense. But everyone else already knows that it is. "God did it" isn't a catch-all escape button you can press. Even with God, it has to make sense, or you're just making stuff up like how Santa Claus can give presents to people who live in apartment buildings without a chimney (hint: he makes a magical chimney).



Point number 3:

  • What happened to all the fresh water creatures? They all died didn't they?
  • Conversely, if the ocean magically became fresh water, what happened to all the salt water creatures? Didn't they die?
  • Or did God nicely divide this ocean into fresh water and salt water oceans with his magic?
  • Where did the water go? It doesn't seep "back into the earth" because heat and pressure forces it back out. It doesn't go into the atmosphere, because the added heat and pressure makes us DIE.




Point number 4:

  • What happened to all the plants?

  • All plant life would have died at the bottom of the ocean. How did the dove get the olive branch? How in the blue hades was there an olive tree alive?

  • Did it magically spring up as soon as the flood waters went down, even though the ground was now saturated with salt? From where did it come? How did an olive seed survive the flood? Was that also magic?



Point number 5:

  • What did the animals who stepped off the ark have to eat? Remember, you used up all your food on the journey, and these are carnivores.

The world is EMPTY. There's nothing for them to eat except the magical plants that shouldn't have survived the flood at all. I guess God must have planted more animals down there for the carnivores to hunt.

  • Why didn't they eat each other after stepping off the ark? They survived the flood, but suddenly the deer got eaten by the wolves, and now no more deer.




Point number 6:

  • How did species that are native to North America, South America, the pacific islands, Australia, Asia, Africa, Greenland, and Europe manage to all find their way back to these specific continents AND ONLY THESE CONTINENTS or these islands in the middle of bum-(bleep) nowhere?

  • Did God put them there? Pick them up, or magically teleport them? If so, why have an ark in the first place?

  • Why couldn't God simply snap his fingers and make all the undesirables disappear instead of have this ELABORATE AND COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL EVENT destroy these life forms, and then confusingly re-arrange them around the planet to look AS IF IT NEVER HAPPENED?



Point number 7:


  • You do realize that micro-evolution is evolution, right? You do realize that over a long period of time, species WILL diverge so much that they can't interbreed anymore and will be considered distinct species?

There isn't some magical force field which stops micro-evolution in its tracks when creatures evolve so differently from one another that they can't interbreed anymore, to prevent them from becoming genetically incompatible. They stop breeding with each other and over time, there are chromosomal differences which create situations like the mule.... offspring is possible, but they are sterile.

Micro-evolution is marco-evolution, in as much that a branch of a tree is part of an entire tree. You know how 2 times 2 is four? Well if you multiply it again, it gets bigger than that, and it's called exponential powers of two. What you're arguing is that the only things which are proven to exist are 2 and 4, and you deny that 4 can become 8 and 16, ever. And the reason you give for this is none whatsoever, but your stubborn beliefs. When you admit that 2x2 is 4, you have to admit that 4x2 is 8. Micro evolution is macro evolution.




Point number 8:

If the ark, as written in the bible, was literally not big enough to hold the millions of different animal species by volume, their plant and animal food, their massive amounts of feces and urine, and certainly not enough to stay afloat, and Noah sure as all heck didn't bring freshwater fish and all the various plants and bacteria of the world aboard the ark. So, where did all the millions of modern species come from, if not from the ark?

If they split off from the species on the ark, that means you believe in evolution, by definition. Except the evolution you believe in is:

  • magical
  • happens during written history, in full view of mankind, and no one ever writes about it and calls it miraculous
  • something that suddenly stopped a couple thousand years ago before people of science would have noticed it, for no reason whatsoever (so you can deny evolution exists).




Point number 9:


  • How did Noah get these animals to the ark? Did he circumnavigate the globe? If so, why didn't the church know the earth was ROUND??
  • Did they swim?
  • Was it magic???








Bottom line, end of fantasy land:





You either:

1. Believe that 2 of every single member of every single species today (and all the ones that have gone extinct in the meantime) and animals for those other animals to hunt and all the food and all the seeds for all the plantlife and gigantic aquariums filled with freshwater fish were all on the ark, built by a 600 year old elderly gentleman who is capable of marching his elderly butt around the entire planet with big nets and wagons filled with trapped animals who never needed to eat and never died and never got injured and never ate each other, while also dodging all the DINOSAURS that the Bible never mentions, had them ALL survive the long journey back to the ark, and had them all survive on the ark, and had them all exit the ark and somehow magically still had things to eat, and somehow magically there were the same plant species alive after the flood as before, and somehow magically all the insects survived the flood even though SOME OF THEM don't even have life spans long enough to last THROUGH the flood.... Giant buckets of animal excrement, being carried up to the top deck and dumped overboard, over and over again, for 40 days and 40 nights, nothing but tubs filled to the brim with hot liquid feces, all carried by a 600 year old man... (This story has a lot in common with these giant buckets of excrement) Oh and after they make landfall, the animals magically teleported back to their home continents.


OR


2. You believe 99% of the points in number 1, but you ALSO believe in magic special hyper-pokemon evolution that happened after Noah's flood, a few thousand years ago, during which time there were humans recording history in Bibles and none of them ever mentioned evolution, even though that would have been without a doubt God's GREATEST miracle, and you also believe that this evolution stopped and is not happening anymore, because you don't believe in evolution.


OR


3. You accept the current scientific consensus, which involves a lot more people with a lot more education and a lot more experience and a lot more data and a lot more evidence and understanding of the universe than you, who believe to an extraordinary degree that:

  • Evolution is a slow and natural process that continues today and has occurred over the past several billion years, and that Young Earth theory and man walking with dinosaurs is all wrong and Biblical literalism is DEAD WRONG, which means your entire faith is WRONG if it believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God AND meant to be taken literally!





There are only three choices. Which one is it? One, Two, or Three??? Please pick one and stick with it. While you make your selection, please enjoy the following music.


 
I'm not a Bible literalist, but I'll take a stab at some of your points.

All animals on board the ark need to eat, for a long period of time on a rickety ship in the middle of the greatest storm EVER.

Recall the 'breaking of the bread'? Jesus fed thousands with just a loaf or two. He did the same thing with fish.

How could the ark support the weight of tens of thousands of different species,

You should take into consideration our common day ships that are made of very heavy metal that carry thousands of people, or the aircraft carriers that carry thousands of people and heavy equipment.

Conversely, if the ocean magically became fresh water, what happened to all the salt water creatures? Didn't they die?

My other hobby is caving and the cave divers among us have talked about freshwater caves in the ocean. They talk about how amazing and beautiful it is when you pass through the barrier/divider between salt and fresh water. I don't quite understand it myself.

If the ark, as written in the bible, was literally

I always find it funny that atheist argue the Bible literally. Heck, I find it hilarious that Christians take the Bible literally.

There are only three choices.

I disagree with you. There are not only three choices. You've merely given him only three.
 
Domination3000, I am calling you out. :ninja:

You should have asked Classical_hero, I'm sure he could refute this. But I'll try.


If you ignore any of these points, then you're admitting you have no idea what you're talking about and you're reflexively defending an idea that you can't actually defend when someone calls you on your factual errors. So why bother continue posting?

I am here.

Until you respond to this, I'm going to ask every single person who replies to you to link back to this post, so you will remember that everything you say is not being taken seriously until you finally address these points.

I'm still here ATPG.


Point number 1:

Two animals is not enough genetic diversity for a species to survive. That is why when pandas get down to enough that you can count them on your hands, that's the end of pandas.
  • Do you understand this?

No.

There has to have been only two at one point in time. If you deny this, you are denying logic. Somewhere down the evolutionary chain, there must have been two.


Point number 2:

All animals on board the ark need to eat, for a long period of time on a rickety ship in the middle of the greatest storm EVER. Noah would have had to get a whole bunch of live animals for the predators to eat, so you have to make room for that, and there also needs to be great big bales of hay for the cows and all kinds of matter for the Horses and Zebra and everything else under the sun. Some kinds of foods don't keep during the journey, because there's no such thing as refrigeration. The animals that are used as food also need to eat. Feces and urine are EVERYWHERE. Noah would need to have separate compartments for each breeding pair. What if one of them got sick and died? What if some got loose and ate one of the unicorns? (Oh....) What if one of the animals were sterile?

None of the animals ate meat at that time presumably. It was only given to man after Noah, it may or may not have been given animals as well. However, it is also possible that they also killed animals ahead of time and gave them to the other animals. I DON'T KNOW. And I don't care. Any answer would be an assumption.


[*]How could the ark support the weight of tens of thousands of different species, their food and the other animals they would have had to eat? What did Noah do with all of that urine and fecal matter? Most of the ship is underwater, did he spend all that time carrying gigantic buckets filled with excrement to the top deck?
[/LIST]

No clue. I presume they all peed on deck. I DON'T KNOW.


  • [*]How did the tens of thousands of different species radiate into the millions of species we know of today without evolution?

    Microevolution.

    [*]If you say God's magic, you're admitting this is all nonsense. But everyone else already knows that it is. "God did it" isn't a catch-all escape button you can press. Even with God, it has to make sense, or you're just making stuff up like how Santa Claus can give presents to people who live in apartment buildings without a chimney (hint: he makes a magical chimney).

    No, God created "Sense" so that point is irrelevant.


    Point number 3:

    • What happened to all the fresh water creatures? They all died didn't they?
    • Conversely, if the ocean magically became fresh water, what happened to all the salt water creatures? Didn't they die?
    • Or did God nicely divide this ocean into fresh water and salt water oceans with his magic?


    • I don't think salt water existed before the flood. Problem solved.

      [*]Where did the water go? It doesn't seep "back into the earth" because heat and pressure forces it back out. It doesn't go into the atmosphere, because the added heat and pressure makes us DIE.

    No idea.


    Point number 4:

    • What happened to all the plants?

    They survived underwater. Or, if that doesn't work for you, perhaps Noah brought seeds onto the ark.


    [*]All plant life would have died at the bottom of the ocean. How did the dove get the olive branch? How in the blue hades was there an olive tree alive?
    Apparently they didn't die.


    [*]Did it magically spring up as soon as the flood waters went down, even though the ground was now saturated with salt? From where did it come? How did an olive seed survive the flood? Was that also magic?
    Possibly.


    Point number 5:

    • What did the animals who stepped off the ark have to eat? Remember, you used up all your food on the journey, and these are carnivores.

    The new young that are born.

    The world is EMPTY. There's nothing for them to eat except the magical plants that shouldn't have survived the flood at all. I guess God must have planted more animals down there for the carnivores to hunt.

    Remember, there were seven pairs of some animals.
    • Why didn't they eat each other after stepping off the ark? They survived the flood, but suddenly the deer got eaten by the wolves, and now no more deer.

    No idea. God's "Magic."




    Point number 6:

    • How did species that are native to North America, South America, the pacific islands, Australia, Asia, Africa, Greenland, and Europe manage to all find their way back to these specific continents AND ONLY THESE CONTINENTS or these islands in the middle of bum-(bleep) nowhere?

    Travel. And the world was one continent back then. They just died out everywhere else.
    • Did God put them there? Pick them up, or magically teleport them? If so, why have an ark in the first place?

    No, its called migration.

    • [*]Why couldn't God simply snap his fingers and make all the undesirables disappear instead of have this ELABORATE AND COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL EVENT destroy these life forms, and then confusingly re-arrange them around the planet to look AS IF IT NEVER HAPPENED?

    Hence why the planet appears to be millions of years old.


    Point number 7:


    • You do realize that micro-evolution is evolution, right? You do realize that over a long period of time, species WILL diverge so much that they can't interbreed anymore and will be considered distinct species?

    Yes, but the world will not last that long.

    There isn't some magical force field which stops micro-evolution in its tracks when creatures evolve so differently from one another that they can't interbreed anymore, to prevent them from becoming genetically incompatible. They stop breeding with each other and over time, there are chromosomal differences which create situations like the mule.... offspring is possible, but they are sterile.

    The magical force is called time. The world won't last long enough. If it does, macroevolution may happen. It may not. That is meaningless.

    Micro-evolution is marco-evolution, in as much that a branch of a tree is part of an entire tree. You know how 2 times 2 is four? Well if you multiply it again, it gets bigger than that, and it's called exponential powers of two. What you're arguing is that the only things which are proven to exist are 2 and 4, and you deny that 4 can become 8 and 16, ever. And the reason you give for this is none whatsoever, but your stubborn beliefs. When you admit that 2x2 is 4, you have to admit that 4x2 is 8. Micro evolution is macro evolution.

    But Macroevolution has never been observed. Micro has.




    Point number 8:

    If the ark, as written in the bible, was literally not big enough to hold the millions of different animal species by volume, their plant and animal food, their massive amounts of feces and urine, and certainly not enough to stay afloat, and Noah sure as all heck didn't bring freshwater fish and all the various plants and bacteria of the world aboard the ark. So, where did all the millions of modern species come from, if not from the ark?

    If they split off from the species on the ark, that means you believe in evolution, by definition. Except the evolution you believe in is:

    • magical
    • happens during written history, in full view of mankind, and no one ever writes about it and calls it miraculous
    • something that suddenly stopped a couple thousand years ago before people of science would have noticed it, for no reason whatsoever (so you can deny evolution exists).

    Oh, I'm sure microevolution still happens, but microevolution isn't macroevolution.


    Point number 9:


    • How did Noah get these animals to the ark? Did he circumnavigate the globe? If so, why didn't the church know the earth was ROUND??
    • Did they swim?
    • Was it magic???

    God made them come. The Bible is clear on this.




    You either:

    1. Believe that 2 of every single member of every single species today (and all the ones that have gone extinct in the meantime) and animals for those other animals to hunt and all the food and all the seeds for all the plantlife and gigantic aquariums filled with freshwater fish were all on the ark, built by a 600 year old elderly gentleman who is capable of marching his elderly butt around the entire planet with big nets and wagons filled with trapped animals who never needed to eat and never died and never got injured and never ate each other, while also dodging all the DINOSAURS that the Bible never mentions, had them ALL survive the long journey back to the ark, and had them all survive on the ark, and had them all exit the ark and somehow magically still had things to eat, and somehow magically there were the same plant species alive after the flood as before, and somehow magically all the insects survived the flood even though SOME OF THEM don't even have life spans long enough to last THROUGH the flood.... Giant buckets of animal excrement, being carried up to the top deck and dumped overboard, over and over again, for 40 days and 40 nights, nothing but tubs filled to the brim with hot liquid feces, all carried by a 600 year old man... (This story has a lot in common with these giant buckets of excrement) Oh and after they make landfall, the animals magically teleported back to their home continents.


    OR


    2. You believe 99% of the points in number 1, but you ALSO believe in magic special hyper-pokemon evolution that happened after Noah's flood, a few thousand years ago, during which time there were humans recording history in Bibles and none of them ever mentioned evolution, even though that would have been without a doubt God's GREATEST miracle, and you also believe that this evolution stopped and is not happening anymore, because you don't believe in evolution.


    OR


    3. You accept the current scientific consensus, which involves a lot more people with a lot more education and a lot more experience and a lot more data and a lot more evidence and understanding of the universe than you, who believe to an extraordinary degree that:

    • Evolution is a slow and natural process that continues today and has occurred over the past several billion years, and that Young Earth theory and man walking with dinosaurs is all wrong and Biblical literalism is DEAD WRONG, which means your entire faith is WRONG if it believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God AND meant to be taken literally!

    I deny all three.
 
Creationism is a bit nutty for my taste. I only feel that some sort of deity only created the world and left it be (The Clockmaker God).
 
The world was all one continent before the flood? That's some pretty quick continental drift.
 
Open season, boys.


I'll take a crack at the simplest one.

There has to have been only two at one point in time. If you deny this, you are denying logic. Somewhere down the evolutionary chain, there must have been two.


No, Domination3000, you are denying logic.

Firstly, the theory of evolution doesn't involve 2 mutants from one species splitting off into their own species, which requires sudden rapid change from one species into another.

A cat does not mutate from a dog.

Have you ever read a single thing about how evolution works? You realize that mules come from animals breeding that can't quite breed together properly anymore?

Not "two mules", right?

There are tens of thousands of members of this sub-group that no longer mates with the whole. One day, a slight mutation makes it so that the new generation in one specimen can't breed with the WHOLE, but it CAN breed with members of its sub-group.

That represents a vast gene pool to draw from in the formation of two distinct species. And often, that change isn't so complete that the offspring are always sterile, or never become an embryo. Sometimes it still happens, but they are selected out.

The bottom line is, there isn't two of a new species of butterfly. There's a whole population of a subspecies which can still breed with the whole, but a new generation which is less and less capable of doing so.

It's not a "pair" of animals, it's an entire gene pool, and it HAS BEEN THAT WAY ever since sexual reproduction became the new thing, and not asexual reproduction.

And yes, all the species of plant and animal can all be traced back to asexual, cellular life.

If you're going to debate this stuff, learn what the scientists are actually talking about, don't argue against your own pet theory, because it's wrong.


The world was all one continent before the flood? That's some pretty quick continental drift.

A WIZARD DID IT



Apparently they didn't die.



Yes, APPARENTLY your story has big giant gaping holes in its logic that you're not even BOTHERING TO FILL with reason.
 
No idea. God's "Magic."

Pretty much you're only explanation. Coupled with the "I don't know's" and your habit or excluding accepted scientific facts to pretty much retcon the geologic history of the Earth and biological understanding of evolution, you have shown that you really don't know. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

I imagine you putting your fingers in your ears and chanting, "la-la-la-can't hear you-la-la-la."

Microevolution = Macroevolution = Evolution

There is evidence that the first humans and neanderthals ate meat. It's a fact.

What's with the no saltwater pre-flood? The hell's that all about? Iwaslikehuh?

Very lolworthy (last couple of pages).
 
Like I said before, if we get time machines before I die, I'm going to hunt down the guy that invented the terms micro- and macroevolution, choke him and damn the consequences.
 
Domination3000, if you're not interested in the evidence (if you can answer so many questions with I don't care/I don't know, and doing so does not affect your faith) why are you posting in this thread?

Edit: Another question: Do you believe that your salvation will be affected if you followed the scientific consensus for the evolution of the Universe and biology on Earth?
 
The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the same as the difference between a minute and an hour.

Of course a minute is not the same as an hour, but the real thing we are talking about is TIME itself. So the process that takes place during a minute is the same exact thing as an hour.

Or if you are filling your cup with water, a half cup of water is very different from a full cup. But that's not the issue. The issue is POURING THE WATER as a process. The volume in the cup is the observable effect of this process, as the change and rise of species is to evolution.

Or am I just high?
 
The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the same as the difference between a minute and an hour.

Of course a minute is not the same as an hour, but the real thing we are talking about is TIME itself. So the process that takes place during a minute is the same exact thing as an hour.

Or if you are filling your cup with water, a half cup of water is very different from a full cup. But that's not the issue. The issue is POURING THE WATER as a process. The volume in the cup is the observable effect of this process, as the change and rise of species is to evolution.

Or am I just high?

I'm not qualified to call you high, but I'd say the difference is more the difference between speciation events (macro) and the regular mutation rate (micro) that often make synonymous (e.g. silent) or single point mutations that might not always cause significant phenotype changes. In other words the difference is a matter of scale of the changes, but not necessarily time-dependent. Though some human diseases (e.g. Cystic Fibrosis) are all about an unfortunate single mutation or substitution that is non-synonymous.

I guess the only criticism of your analogy is if there is a linear regression of macroevolution vs, microevolution, and my intuition is that it isn't that simple. I.e. Is there a mathematical function that guarantees that if the rate of microevolution is some rate, then the rate of speciation (macro) will have some dependent rate? I'd guess no, but maybe some super computer program could prove that there is a linear function (as in a straight line).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
 
tanja_askani_wolf_dog_friends.jpg


=

dog-breeds_2.jpg
??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

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.

An aside, dogs are just one species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog
 
No I don't. I just do not believe in it.

Dom, do you really believe that there are thousands of scientists out there, all of them smart, well educated people, who have spent their entire lives studying the natural world, but that you somehow know better?
 
If you don't think it affects your (or anyone elses, presumably) do you object to it being thought as a scientific theory in schools?

A: I did not say that it has no effect, I said you can believe in Evolution and it won't endanger your salvation. I did not say it has no effect. I still don't consider it a good thing to believe in it, I consider it an important issue, just not a critical one.

As for my opinion on schools, it depends on precisely how its done. I consider it totally unacceptable to teach it as fact or to word test questions in such a way that you will either accept evolution or get them wrong. But to teach it as a possible theory, and to ask questions in a format of "According to the Theory of Evolution..." would be OK I guess. A better option would be to teach both that and ID or neither.
 
Dommy's post basically boils down to "I don't know how it happened because I don't know anything about anything, but I know it happened so it must have happened some how. All the people who DO know something about something couldn't possibly be right because they don't believe it happened at all."

Remember that thread asking why people were ignorant? Proudly? and I said it's because churches reinforce the idea that you can believe any old stupid thing because "It's what I believe and that's that"?

I'm not qualified to call you high, but I'd say the difference is more the difference between speciation events (macro) and the regular mutation rate (micro) that often make synonymous (e.g. silent) or single point mutations that might not always cause significant phenotype changes. In other words the difference is a matter of scale of the changes, but not necessarily time-dependent. Though some human diseases (e.g. Cystic Fibrosis) are all about an unfortunate single mutation or substitution that is non-synonymous.

As valiantly as you might try, the problem is any kind of "micro" or "within kinds" evolution that would be sufficient to derive the diversity of life from enough "kinds" to fit aboard a wooden boat, is "macro."

I could point to many many speciation events that required less phenotypic change than the phenotypic change required to derive all of Carnivora, or hell, even Canis, from a single breeding pair.
 
A: I did not say that it has no effect, I said you can believe in Evolution and it won't endanger your salvation. I did not say it has no effect. I still don't consider it a good thing to believe in it, I consider it an important issue, just not a critical one.

I apologise for misinterpreting your post.

I'm curious though, at what point would believing in the Big Bang and evolution be the tipping point towards damnation - what other views would a person have to hold that would cause believing in macroevolution to be the tipping point?

I don't know your views on purgatory, so feel free to include that if it's relevant.

Edit:

If creation occurred as described in the Bible, I can't believe that the Christian God would care about whether a person chose to believe in the Big Bang and evolution over the Biblical description. I do not think either view is morally superior. The question asked above is because you do, apparently, think that there is a moral value in one view (assuming salvation is determined by morals). I'd like to know what that value is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom