The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Five: The Revenge of Mike Shermer

[warpus]

Exactly, for Creationists to sucessfully explain the world, they would also need to explain how evolutionists came to be so wrong.

They have an agenda, didn't you know?

 

[Mark1031]

Exactly, for Creationists to sucessfully explain the world, they would also need to explain how evolutionists came to be so wrong.

It's quite simple. You are the minions of Satan sent to test the faith of the righteous. The antichrist is born of a jackal. You evolutionists claim to be born of a monkey. Close enough for me to know who is pulling your strings.

 

[Babbler]

The rest of you pints are just assumptions based on assumptions.. The fact that the simplest are found first in the fossil record could have happened a way that you did not know, because the last time I checked no one was around when these events happened.

Historical sciences (geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology, paleoclimatology, etc.) are well-established and have proven useful time and time again. We may not have eyewitness accounts (which can be quite faulty), but we able to piece the physical evidence to fit a story of how thing goes. In fact, given the time involved, eyewitness accounts would be useless.

So you have to assume that what you just said is true, but you could be wrong. Just like I am assuming that what the Bible says. It basically boils down to what assumptions you want to believe.

But are those assumptions good assumptions? It take a lot more assumption to believe the fossil record is "wrong" than believe that Genesis is incorrect.

 

[El_Machinae]

Any new evolution since humanity started?

 

[warpus]

Any new evolution since humanity started?

That's just satire, right?

 

[El_Machinae]

The question is a bit simplistic, but people know me well enough to know that I understand the concepts.

I just can't think of any 'larger' animals appearing in the fossil record since humanity spouted. I'm not saying there isn't, I just can't think of any. Hence the question

 

[warpus]

Like, the last 4 million years or so? Surely that's not enough time for a species to significantly grow in size.

 

[Perfection]

The question is a bit simplistic, but people know me well enough to know that I understand the concepts.

I just can't think of any 'larger' animals appearing in the fossil record since humanity spouted. I'm not saying there isn't, I just can't think of any. Hence the question

Animal size isn't the only thing in evolution.

But really, large animal evolution has been somewhat hindered by humans because large animals = food.

 

[Babbler]

Animal size isn't the only thing in evolution.

But really, large animal evolution has been somewhat hindered by humans because large animals = food.

Jared Diamond (in The Third Chimpanzee, IIRC) wrote that only the African megafauna survived because it evolved with human. In the rest of the world, the megafauna was taken by surprise and hunted to extinction.

 

[ArneHD]

I thought it had to do with oxygen levels? I was under the impression that because oxygen levels were higher, animals grew bigger. Or that this was at least one of the factors.

 

[Che Guava]

Jared Diamond (in The Third Chimpanzee, IIRC) wrote that only the African megafauna survived because it evolved with human. In the rest of the world, the megafauna was taken by surprise and hunted to extinction.

Hmmmmm..that's the one Diamond I haven't gotten around to....how did the megafauna there evolve with humans exactly? i was thoughts that african animals were just more vicious than the rest because they had to deal with more predators (non-human ones, that is...)

I thought it had to do with oxygen levels? I was under the impression that because oxygen levels were higher, animals grew bigger. Or that this was at least one of the factors.

I think that only holds true for invetebrates without complex circulatory systems (like giant dragonflies), but I beleive even that theory has been less than a percfect fit.

 

[Babbler]

Hmmmmm..that's the one Diamond I haven't gotten around to....how did the megafauna there evolve with humans exactly? i was thoughts that african animals were just more vicious than the rest because they had to deal with more predators (non-human ones, that is...)

It could have also been Tim Flannery in The Enternal Frontier...

I am reading Guns, Germs and Steel, BTW.

 

[Berzerker]

1. Plants do not need the sun, they just need a source of light, which, according to Genesis was the among the first things created.

That source of light was the Sun, the darkness was called Night and the light was called Day.

 

[Stewbert 08]

You didn't show me where Genesis denies evolution. You challenged the sequence of events as if that is a denial of evolution. Does that mean Darwin (or anybody else) denied evolution if he got the sequence of events wrong?

Surely it means we shouldn't rely on their specific account of events anymore.

You're mixing up two storylines (different authors sometimes overlapping each other) and confusing celestial events before life appeared with events after life appeared.

No I'm not. However, GENESIS IS. Genesis says the sun, moon and stars are all younger than plants.

If you can't see why that's ********, I think we're done here, neh?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either

1. You are claiming Genesis is an accurate account of the chronology of creation, in which case it deserves to be examined critically (& inevitably found to be false). OR

2. You are NOT claiming it to be a fully accurate chronology of creation, in which case the few times in which Genesis does NOT get the chronology utterly backwards can't be cherrypicked and held up to say, "Hey, the science supports religion!"

Remember, I don't care if you think a day is a day or a million years, all I'm talking about is the ORDER in which Genesis says things appeared in the universe.

To repeat -

Genesis says plants are younger than the sun, moon and stars.
Genesis says land plants appeared before any kind of animal.
Genesis says birds appeared before land-dwelling animals.
Genesis says land-dwelling mammals came after sea-dwelling mammals.
Genesis says insects appeared after birds.
Genesis says "all animals" ate plants.

all of this is DEAD WRONG no matter whether you are a Young Earth, Old Earth, or Evolutionary creationist.

Then Genesis describes the celestial vault and proceeds to the waters or Seas and the swarming winged critters that took to the air and then took to the land. Sounds like insects, not birds.

Wrong once again, the Hebrew phrase kanaf-ofe corresponds to our word "fowl," not "every flying thing."

Know your Hebrew if you're going to read your own interpretations into the Torah.

I'd say the author did a damned good job given the assumed state of knowledge at that time.

I'd say they did a horrible job. Even people living in 3000 BC should have known that plants can't survive without sunlight.

Genesis (and most of the world's creation myths) describes the following:

A proto Earth covered with water
a celestial battle of some kind produces a new world
The "Earth" (dry land) appears from underneath the waters
life appears and so do we

You got science disproving that?

Uh, YES?

It's universally acknowledged that the early earth was VOLCANIC. The SEAS slowly appeared on earth due to precipitation as the earth cooled. Not the LAND, due to the seas being "gathered to one place."

If you can't examine your own arguments using common sense, before you post them, why should I bother refuting them?

Really, you show exactly where someone will end up if they take Genesis as their starting point.

 

[Stewbert 08]

To reiterate, I'm fine with people who believe that God caused evolution to occur, but if you believe that, you believe Genesis is error-riddled.

Can't have your cake, etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

Any new evolution since humanity started?

Animal size isn't the only thing in evolution.

But really, large animal evolution has been somewhat hindered by humans because large animals = food.

While editing my post, I accidentally ruined the post Warpus replied to. Unfortunately, he replied selectively and so I don't remember the full post that he replied to.

I'm not asking about an increase in size, I'm asking about a new species appearing since humanity started. By 'larger' I mean an animal that is bigger than your head - something we can recognise.

Have any new species appeared since humanity spawned?

 

[Stewbert 08]

Depends on your definition of humanity, Homo sapiens appeared just 200,000 years ago...

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure: it's not like species evolve in lock-step, according to some specific frequency. There are periods of increased speciation and periods of slower speciation, but new species must pop up with some type of frequency.

edit: for example, for 200,000 years there were no humans in North America (right?). So, any major species changes there in that time? How about Australia? Antarctica?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am quite sure that the authors of Genesis were as aware or unaware as anyone else what plants need to survive. It is silly to think that they were stupid just because they didn't produce a scientifically rigorous work.

But that is neither here nor there. Glad to see the new thread up.

 

[Berzerker]

Surely it means we shouldn't rely on their specific account of events anymore.

What does that have to do with denying evolution? You never did bother answering that. I rely on many sources, not one. I actually prefer the Enuma Elish because it gives a much more detailed account of creation. But as I said, Genesis does a very good job given the assumed state of knowledge at the time. I'd appreciate it if you would address what I've said instead of arguing against your own strawman.

No I'm not. However, GENESIS IS. Genesis says the sun, moon and stars are all younger than plants.

Yes you are. Did you even know there are multiple authors of Genesis? The Sun appears in the story before Heaven and Earth appear, I just told you that and you're still repeating it?

1. You are claiming Genesis is an accurate account of the chronology of creation, in which case it deserves to be examined critically (& inevitably found to be false).

Where did I say that?

2. You are NOT claiming it to be a fully accurate chronology of creation, in which case the few times in which Genesis does NOT get the chronology utterly backwards can't be cherrypicked and held up to say, "Hey, the science supports religion!"

Where did I say that? I said Genesis does not deny evolution and I pointed to man's acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil to show Genesis actually supports evolution. You ignored all that and jumped on the sequence of events (your strawman) as if this is proof Genesis denies evolution. So does that mean everyone who gets the sequence of events off is denying evolution? Just answer the question.

To repeat -

Genesis says plants are younger than the sun, moon and stars.

No it doesn't, you're still confusing the storylines of multiple authors. The Sun appears in the story before Heaven and Earth appear in the story.

Wrong once again, the Hebrew phrase kanaf-ofe corresponds to our word "fowl," not "every flying thing."

Know your Hebrew if you're going to read your own interpretations into the Torah.

"20 And said God, Let swarm the waters swarmers breathing creatures living, and flying creatures flying upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.
21 And created God the great living creatures, and every living creature that moves, which swarmed the waters after its kind, and every winged creature after its kind; and saw God that it was good."

Sounds like there's a difference between swarming winged critters from the water and the birds that would later come to inhabit the land. Now chronology doesn't matter to you?

Genesis says plants are younger than the sun, moon and stars.

Wrong

Genesis says land plants appeared before any kind of animal.

No, it says plants appeared on land before animals.

Genesis says birds appeared before land-dwelling animals.

No, it says the waters brought forth the swarming winged critters that took to the air and finally took to the land.

Genesis says land-dwelling mammals came after sea-dwelling mammals.

Where does it say that?

Genesis says insects appeared after birds.

No it doesn't, insects are the swarming winged critters born of the waters before the land became occupied.

Genesis says "all animals" ate plants.

No it doesn't, it says plants provided food for animals.

I'd say they did a horrible job. Even people living in 3000 BC should have known that plants can't survive without sunlight.

The Sun appears in Gen 1:3 before Heaven and Earth even exist.

Uh, YES?

It's universally acknowledged that the early earth was VOLCANIC. The SEAS slowly appeared on earth due to precipitation as the earth cooled. Not the LAND, due to the seas being "gathered to one place."

Genesis is not describing how the proto-Earth came to exist or what it looked like 4.5 bya, its describing the proto-Earth at the time of creation. And it describes a planet covered by water. That means there were no continents or mtn ranges (dry land), but thru the act of creation the dry land would appear. How? Creation set in motion plate tectonics and continent building. The oldest rocks date back to about 3.9 bya and life followed very soon after. Astronomers believe the Earth was struck 4bya by a Mars sized object and that this collision wiped out evidence of what the proto-Earth was like 4.5 bya. Do you have evidence of continents and mtn ranges before 4 bya? No, you dont.

If you can't examine your own arguments using common sense, before you post them, why should I bother refuting them?

You haven't refuted my argument, you wandered off into a mis-informed rant about the sequence of events in Genesis. Shall I repeat my argument again (and again and again?). I said Genesis does not deny evolution and that the story of the Garden shows evolution at work.