The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found this on religious tolerance. If you would like to see some of the rebuttals they have against it(which rely solely on the assumption that the speed of light hasn't remained the same, as well as that of nature used to be much faster) http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm

Creation science teaches that all of the land animals (except the ones in the ark) who were alive at the time of the flood drowned. Some turned into fossils and were trapped in the layers of sedimentary rock which were laid down by the flood. Robert Schadewald computed that if all of the animals in the Karroo Formation in Africa were alive at one time and evenly spaced around the entire land surface of earth, that there would be 21 animals (ranging in size from a small lizard to a cow) per acre. A very conservative estimate is that there are 99 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 100 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number) then there would be 5 land animals per square feet of earth. There would have been wall-to-wall animals, if not multiple-layers of animals. Of course, if all of the fossils had been formed over hundreds of millions of years, then only a very small fraction of the animals would have been present at any one time. There would not have been sufficient animals alive at any one time to crowd each other excessively.

Inter32 said:
It is just plain stupid to believe that earth was created in 7 literal days.
The word ''day'' in the Bible can mean, 24 hours, 1 week, 100 years, 1000, years, 1.000.000 years. Depends on the situation.

and perhaps Adam didn't live 930 years it was probably 100 billion years or perhaps 2 seconds :lol:
 
carlosMM said:
bashing religion?

no, bashing hard people who are so dumb to let some perverted fundamentalist belief get in the way of their of brain doing what it is suppoed to do - think!

If you were using your brain to think, you might realize that the brain can and does do far more than just think.;)
 
Well then, I was over in my "prove god exists thread' and perchance do see this post by FL2

FearlessLeader2 said:
Agreed. But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Additionally, there are still enough holes in the ToE that it cannot be stated as fact that speciation did not have intelligence behind it. Additionally, the question of biogenesis remains unanswered. Without a biogenesis engine to pull it, the ToE freight train is stalled on the tracks.

To Which I responded with:

Perfection said:
Here's a couple flaws.

1. For the last time the theory of evolution does not require abiogenesis. It merely states that all life comes from a common ancestor and through natural selection (I'm refer to Darwinian evolution as evolution) became the diverse amount of life we see today.

2. There is much credence to abiogenesis, numerous expiraments have shown early earth could produce the components needed for life, the following have been produced inorganicly through simple expiraments: polypeptides, nucleotides, lipids, sugars. The unique properties of RNA and protiens also suggest that rudiementary replication is possible without as much machinery as a modern cell has. Also, it has been noted that there are simple ways to concentrate chemicals these that could be reproduced in nature. Figuring out the way this may have occured given the fact it took millions of years over the surface of the entire earth is not always going to give a clear cut. The links between life's chemistry and that of early Earth are incomplete but they are there!


Of course this is off-topic, if you want to debate more, click the link in my sig!

Now instead of clicking the link with the sig, FL2 decided for some reason to PM me. Of course, I cannot debate via PM that would defeat the purpose of debating, increasing postcount. So I PMed him back and got his permission to post it here, and so here we go!

FearlessLeader2 said:
1. If there's no life to speciate, then what's the point? And once more, for the record, natural selection does not add traits, it prunes them.
#1. There is much more to evolution then speciation, please just call it evolution.
#2. You do bring a vild point that the origins of life are linked with evolution, however, showing that life must be divinely created bears no evidence against evolution. God could have simply created the "first cell" and let it evolve.
#3. Actually, one of the largest reasons that evolutionists hold Darwin in so much esteem is because he showed how natural selection is a creative force. Variation, by and large is an undirected thing. Mutations can be "good" "bad" or "nuetral." Natural selection allows creativity by providing a means to direct the mutations so that the "good" continue, now in many cases many many genes control a certain feature, so natural selection allows all those genes to be optimized through succesive mutations and recombinations whereas a single mutational event couldn't create it. Thus natural selection acts as the force of creativity.

FearlessLeader2 said:
2. The same forces that allegedly caused the chemical reactions that created those chemicals: lightning, solar radiation, vulcanism, are accompanied by effects that would also destroy or scatter those chemicals, NOT concentrate them. Lightning is accompanied by thunderstorms, vulcanism by earthquakes. Only solar radiation, which at that time was far more intense as we lacked an ozone layer, would have done any concentrating, and if it went too far, it would have evaporated the contents of the 'mixing bowl'.
Saying in one breath that these forces created the first stages of life and then denying their effects on scattering those elements in the next is having your cake and eating it too. You can't have it both ways.
You are correct that in certain instances they can scatter them, however, in many cases they can concrete them. For your thunderstorm example, I'll buy that they'll disperse atmopheric hydrocarbons, however, they'll also concentrate them via runoff, if streams from rainwater dumped their contents into say a lake the lake would get many of the hydrocarbons that were on the surface of the planet. They key is, while the forces certainly could and did act in a dispersive manner, they also acted in a concentrative. Abiogenesis doesn't rely on worldwide concentration, only an isolated incident or two.
 
I'm done with this thread.
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
Much more? Like? If evolution isn't about biodiversity, then what's it for?
Ummm, biodiversity isn't only about species.

FearlessLeader2 said:
On the face of it, that looks reasonable, except that one still has evolution occurring in unexplained leaps and bounds. There was a method to the madness.
What "unexplained leaps and bounds." are you refering to?

FearlessLeader2 said:
Very pretty language, but it still doesn't address the 'conspiracy of coincidences' that make up a typical speciation event.
What do you mean by "conspiracy of coincidences"?

FearlessLeader2 said:
'Concentrated', in a lake?
Sure, by evaporation it could create a relatively thick organic stew.

FearlessLeader2 said:
And all those abio ingredients have to be brought together, in the same area. Noone said they had to be global. But they do need to be contemporaneous and proximate to each other.
And that can occur.
 
I'm done with this thread
 
ah, FL2, there you go again showing you understand nothing.

'macroevolution' as in 'those parts of evolution that are observable on the level of whole organisms and populations is after all nothing but the result of 'microevolution' as in the biochemical processes within organisms.
:lol:

quit trying to seperate the Synthetic Theory of Evolution into two seperate parts - they depend on each other and explain each other!

Go look at the 'Evolutionists don't know what macroevolution is' orr so thread by Saga or Hamatic - that one has a few very good explanations in it which should finally set you right about macro- and micro-evolution!
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
Macroevolution, the one that I and other Creationists have a problem with, is.

Macroevolutions.
Specificly you seem to have a problem with its meaning. You claim that microevolution doesn't involve mutations, but it does, or else natural selection would lose it's verility and it wouldn't be true evolution.

FearlessLeader2 said:
Matched pairs of mutant-gene-bearing creatures both surviving an extinction event that wipes out all their competition within sufficient proximity to each other that they can meet and breed.
Not really, mutations can be dominant and expressed immediatly, or lurk as recessive genes for many generations before coming into contact. Don't forget that animals often inbreed, that can really increase the showing of a recessive gene. There is no need for an extinction.

FearlessLeader2 said:
Them having fellow survival-gene-bearing mutants of prey species handy to predate off of, and fellow survival-gene-bearing plants to graze off of for the prey. Are you beginning to understand 'conspiracy of coincidences' yet? It's not just one species that has to survive an extinction, it's a whole food web.
The fallacy is you require a mass exinction. That very rarely is the cause of speciation. All you really need is some barrier to keep two puplations from reproducing with each other. Geographic isolation is one way, stick two groups of animals on two different islands, and if they can't interbreed it's likely you'll end up with two seperate species after millinea. No mass extinction is needed there. It can even be within the same place, say in a rainforest you have a species with two common morphologies, a canopy one and say a ground dwelling one, these two morphologies will make it so that the canopy and ground groups rarely interbreed and so it's posssible for speciation too occur. Reproductive isolation not mass-extinction is the major need for speciation.


FearlessLeader2 said:
...that continues to be torn at by lightning, vulcanism, solar radiation, et al.
Lighting strikes would be a rare occurance on the ground, not enough to destroy it, vulcanoes certainly weren't everywhere, so that's out. The only universal thing you give is solar radiation. While UV rays may have been stonger (remember the sun was less powerful then, too) you'd need a very very high level to denature stuff to much degree, you have not a shred of evidence that it was that high, and doing some googling I haven't seen any other than blind speculation with no data to back it up. I'll grant you UV was stronger, now show me it was strong enough to destroy everything.

FearlessLeader2 said:
And I could be the first Pepsi billionaire. In fact, I have better chances... Abiogenesis is where the real conspiracy of coincidences happens.
While it is a complex multistep process, I don't see how it's un feasible. Life's chemicals can be created abioticly, these can act in a slightly enzymatic fashion, and over a half-billion years we can get life.

FearlessLeader2 said:
Abiogenesis and the ToE are at best semi-plausible theories. They are by no means concrete, and however much you'd like to have them on seperate spurs, abiogenesis is the engine that pulls the ToE train.
No, natural selection is. Abiogenesis is just an explaination of what occured before.
 
At the end of the day - What have the creationists got to show us all as evidence?

Except the fanciful visions of various myths, the fanciful visions in an
old book and the fanciful visions of scientists who are corrupted by zeal.

All the belief in the cosmos cannot make a fairy tale become true.

I stand waiting to be convinced by creationism - It sounds like a pritmitive fable to me.

:)
 
I'm done with this thread
 
FL: sorry, your post shows simply that you have no idea about evolution. How about you inform yourself?

'All of the finches on Galapagos Islands are still finches.'

this sentence shows that you are incapable of realizing that different finches are actually different species, and only group together as 'finches' atrificially by humans. Yes, tehy are all closely related, but ti would be equally feasible to split them into 2 or more genera.

Your problem is the inability to see the actual process; you hang yourself up on the (necessary) catgorizations.
 
Theories predict. Use the ToE to predict what the Galapagos Island finches will look like in 1,000,000 years.
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
I don't make any claims about microevolution, other than it not being evidence of macroevolution. Variations within a species* do not create a new species, they allow an existing species to move into other climates, terrains, and food supplies, without changing the species to antoher species. All of the finches on Galapagos Islands are still finches.
AS Carlos mentioned different species

FearlessLeader2 said:
If there is no pressure to select the new gene, then why would it be selected? If every non-lethal mutation was kept in the gene pool, there would be no species. DNA is self-repairing. Over time, it corrects the 'bugs in its software', by editing out mutations with backups from the inactive sections of the genome. Unless those 'bugs' are neccessary for survival, they're going to disappear. Extinction events are a critical element of natural selection. Your dismissal of them so easily makes me wonder how much you know about your favorite pet theory.
Extinction events are important in evolution, they however, aren't a prequesuite for speciation. One can delete disadvantageous genes without an exinction event, I suppose you could call that "extinction of the gene" nut that's not the point.

Gotta go to wrok, will debate more later
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
Theories predict. Use the ToE to predict what the Galapagos Island finches will look like in 1,000,000 years.


:lol:

you are totally ignorant - and this dumb post prooves it!
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
* Could I get a coherent definition of 'species' out of you or any other evolutionist?
I can give you a somewhat coherent definition, but because the species concept is applied to billion of years of a planet's biodiversity of living and extinct creatures ranging in complexity from unicellular bacteria to senteint mammels it must be adapted for different purposes. Living animals are generally classified on weather or not they can interbreed, as are living plants (though to a lessor extant due to the greater ability of plants to hybridize) and some fungi, this is known as the "biological species concept". The other concept, based on structural differences is called the "morphological species concept" this is used on fossils and asexual creatures, where interbreeding would be impossible.

FearlessLeader2 said:
As a quid-pro-quo, I offer mine: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. Apply with appropriate variations for all other animals and plants, IE: if it trots like a horse, whinnies like a horse, and looks like a horse, it's a horse.
Hmmm, if it looks like a Chihuahua, barks like a Chihuahua, and runs like a a Chihuahua it's a a Chihuahua. "Chihuahua" is not a species, your definition is silly.

FearlessLeader2 said:
But enough to rely on for your purposes, right?
Correct, While it may be true that if lighting struck every single location on earth every single day life probobly couldn't develop, but it doesn't, and it didn't strike that often. However in early earth's atmophere the amounts of lighting that we did have allowed organic molecules to form.

FearlessLeader2 said:
It must be nice still having that cake you ate... :rolleyes:
It's more like having enough cake to enjoy the flavor, but not enough to make me fat.

FearlessLeader2 said:
See above derision.
See above analogy

FearlessLeader2 said:
Since when do stars get more powerful as they age?
http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys187/notes/starlife/star_life.htm

See main sequence life: "becomes more luminous and cooler "

FearlessLeader2 said:
Once again, if it was strong enough to catalyze your experiment, you must concede that it was also strong enough to disrupt it.
Indeed, however I never said it catylzed it to any great degree, therefore your arguement doesn't apply. I claim that the UV radiation wasn't in extreme amounts, it may have been higher, but not high enough to destroy the process. Of course, if some of the ideas about life developing in the deep seas are correct, than neither apply.

FearlessLeader2 said:
A complex multi-step process. When you say it like that, it almost doesn't sound like a mathematical impossibility...

Doesn't strike me as a very plausible one...
Lots of things are complex multistep processes. Doesn't make 'em unlikely.
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
Theories predict. Use the ToE to predict what the Galapagos Island finches will look like in 1,000,000 years.
Unfortunitly evolution cannot predict in that manner, the number of uncertainties are too great, what will the enviornment be like? What mutations occur? Will there be any new competitors? Evolution can't just predict anything.

However it can make predictions. It predicts that beneficial mutations will occur and that they will spread, and that's happened on numerous occasions.

And that's just one of the many many many ways evolution can predict things
 
I'm done with this thread
 
I'm done with this thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom