Bible vs. Science

Quote:

I presented this because some of our Creationist companions think most of our present land features were created in a very short time; after Noah's Flood. Real seems to think the earth is only 50,000 years old and at the time of the flood there were no high mountains. I don't know what Rex thinks and I don't think he does either.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I think Pauligirl assumed a common level of knowledge herein. This is dangerous and often results in the lesser informed "ganging up" with what they feel is an important although incorrect piece of data.

Yes! Thank you.
P

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

........Now it's always rather humorous when proponents of evolution try to claim that various 'species' (of bears, for instance) arising from a common ancestor (which was also a bear) constitutes 'proof' of evolution.

If bears producing bears is truly evolution, well then I am Charles Darwin.......

.........Various 'species' arise based on genetic information that is already existent and are simply variations of the original, not because mutations can generate enough beneficial genetic information to produce whole new body plans, novel organs and chemical and physical processes etc.

So you're saying that the variety of animals and plants we have today evolved from a much smaller batch which were on the ark. Is that right?

How did you come up with that based on what I wrote?

If you are trying to claim that 'bears producing bears' and 'horses producing horses' is all there is to evolution, then yeah I guess you can say that if you want to.

But we both know that is not what you mean by 'evolution', so the answer would be --- No, the animals we have today did not 'evolve' from a much smaller batch which were on the ark, although they are descendants of same.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have never made any such claim or assumption. Again we see that you must lie about what others have written, and twist it to offer an objection--which objection is not even cogent. I have consistently referred to Genesis Chapter Seven, verses two and three, which use the words beast and fowl. What i have pointed out is that either old Noah took aboard every species which now exists, or ........

Your denial, followed by your restatement of what you deny. Funny.

The text does not say Noah took representatives of every 'species'.

Much of your argument for the inadequacy of the size of the ark, it's supposed unseaworthiness, the inability of Noah to care for the number of animals in the ark, etc is based on your claim that he must have representatives of every 'species' aboard.

If you are going to argue against the text, you might want to argue against what it actually says and not against what it doesn't say.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I thought RL established his beliefs as to the Creation of everything at one time. Earlier , he had been arguing that species existed but usually didnt leave fossils. Now hes trying to do a 180 and say that , since species is an arbitrary term (and it is) everything has been derived from a more convenient group of "kinds" which then transformed into modern "kinds" by some process.
I wonder what that process might have been?

As much as you try RL, you cant have it each of a hundred ways. Thats why science theories endeavor to rationally enclose all the facts and evidence into a single theory in which none of the existing evidence refutes.

Yours, on the other hand, is a monthly changling that morphs your hypotheses in the hopes that noone is paying attention to what you said in May.

Please be consistent

My view hasn't changed.

To say that 'all the animals were created at once' is not inconsistent with noting that tremendous diversity in a group (dogs, for instance) is now apparent in the huge variety of sizes , shapes etc. ; and further, that this diversity is resultant from genetic information existent in the original pair.

If my view appeared inconsistent to you, I apologize. Most likely it is my poor ability to state and explain my views, not any change in them.

0 Replies

rl, I wonder what defines "dogness" in your mind?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl, I wonder what defines "dogness" in your mind?

No idea where you're going with this. Maybe you should ask Setanta. Laughing

You concurred earlier when I referred to taxonomic labels as arbitrary. No surprise, we've discussed it before.

I wonder if you'd be willing to go out on a limb, so to speak and say how many 'species' modern domesticated dogs might be divided into if the same standards (head shape, body size, tooth shape, etc) were applied equally to them as , for instance , to bears or horses when classifying them.

0 Replies

Domesticated dogs constitute a single species (subspecies) called Canis lupus familiaris which essentially means "familiar canines descended from the grey wolves."

0 Replies

If you don't get a huge laugh out of the kinds of distortion of logic these poor boobs go through in order to suck up to their gods...

...you really don't have a sense of humor.

If you don't laugh out loud at some of the absurdities they will endure and advocate in order to make their guesses about the Bible work...

...you are missing out on the best parts of life.

Anyone taking any of this nonsense too seriously really ought take stock of him/her self.

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

RL

Quote:

To say that 'all the animals were created at once' is not inconsistent with noting that tremendous diversity in a group (dogs, for instance) is now apparent in the huge variety of sizes , shapes etc. ; and further, that this diversity is resultant from genetic information existent in the original pair.

My question wasnt that difficult. In your opinion what defines a dog from say a wolf or a fox etc? Or are they the same to you? What defines the minimal difference that Noah applied as a litmus test to define "Kinds"?

Saying that species is arbitrary isnt difficult. All classification systems rely on some sort of criteria to define the baseline. You are trying to dodge this basic point. If species is defined by biology as as an organism that is sexually isolated from similar organisms under natural circumstances what is your take on this? do you have anything better? Where did Noah draw the line?

0 Replies

In that all the subsets of Canis Lupus can interbreed, and are observed to freely do so, with conscious intentional human direction of that interbreeding producing over comparatively short timespan distinct and reliably consistent breeds, the absurdity of rl's ignorant, afoundational, counter-factual ID-iotic objection incontravertably self-demonstrates; hoist on its own petard.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you don't get a huge laugh out of the kinds of distortion of logic these poor boobs go through in order to suck up to their gods...

...you really don't have a sense of humor.

Untrue. I do have a sense of humour, it's just I find their sort of thinking too scary to laugh about.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If you don't get a huge laugh out of the kinds of distortion of logic these poor boobs go through in order to suck up to their gods...

...you really don't have a sense of humor.

Untrue. I do have a sense of humour, it's just I find their sort of thinking too scary to laugh about.

I stand corrected.

Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker...and one of the very few reasonable "prayers":

Dear God...please protect me from your followers!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you don't get a huge laugh out of the kinds of distortion of logic these poor boobs go through in order to suck up to their gods...

...you really don't have a sense of humor.

If you don't laugh out loud at some of the absurdities they will endure and advocate in order to make their guesses about the Bible work...

...you are missing out on the best parts of life.

Anyone taking any of this nonsense too seriously really ought take stock of him/her self.

Good entertainment value fer sure!

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

In that all the subsets of Canis Lupus can interbreed, and are observed to freely do so, with conscious intentional human direction of that interbreeding producing over comparatively short timespan distinct and reliably consistent breeds, the absurdity of rl's ignorant, afoundational, counter-factual ID-iotic objection incontravertably self-demonstrates; hoist on its own petard.

Funny how even with intentional, intelligent direction and organized effort by experienced breeders, everything produced is still considered to be but a single species[/u].....

........but you have faith that randomly occurring mutations can produce whole new body plans, novel organs and completely new chemical and physical processes by chance.[/u]

0 Replies

And you believe it was all done by an omnipotent fairy waving his magic hand. You constantly demand irrefutable concrete evidence from those who disagree with you while producing completely nothing yourself. You're typical of a modern christian. Selfish, arrogant and superior. I feel most sorry for the offspring of you nutcases. You brainwash and indoctrinate innocent minds into your ridiculous ideology and by the time they're 20 years old they're as mentally screwed up and deranged as the brain damaged freaks who raised them.

0 Replies

Quote:

Funny how even with intentional, intelligent direction and organized effort by experienced breeders, everything produced is still considered to be but a single species.....

Just as it is with humans , whats so hard to get?

Quote:

but you have faith that randomly occurring mutations can produce whole new body plans, novel organs and completely new chemical and physical processes by chance.

. Not chance, its cumulative adaptive selection. By the way, Darwin devoted a number of chapters to the natural v man assisted selection. The results, with enough time , could be similar, if the environments could support divergence of varietals.

Remember, evolution is just taking whats already there, and doing something new with it.

0 Replies

Quote:

You brainwash and indoctrinate innocent minds into your ridiculous ideology and by the time they're 20 years old they're as mentally screwed up and deranged as the brain damaged freaks who raised them.

Mny times this backfires on the indoctrinators. There are many of my colleagues who were raised in strict Evangelical Christian households, only to , at some time in their young lives, begin to question the stories, then they go through a severe review of their old time definitions of truth.
Ive had a number of really good students who came from those kinds of religious backgrounds. Some whose parents and families have actually cut off ties with their own kids. Sometimes , in a family, finding out that your kid is studying to be an "EVOLUTIONIST" is like having the kid come out of the closet. .

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Funny how even with intentional, intelligent direction and organized effort by experienced breeders, everything produced is still considered to be but a single species[/u].....

Not unexpected at all. People haven't been manipulating most species long enough to see dramatic speciation such as we see evidence for with much longer timespans. We have been manipulating things with short reproductive cycles, such as fruit flies, and bacteria, and we have seen species change with them. But with Dogs and Cats, there simply haven't been enough generations yet.

real life wrote:

.......but you have faith that randomly occurring mutations can produce whole new body plans, novel organs and completely new chemical and physical processes by chance.[/u]

No, we don't have faith, we have evidence. Lots and lots of multidisciplinary overlapping multifaceted mutually corroborating evidence. And not a single instance of anything which completely conflicts with the model (no fossil lizards in precambrian rock, no whale fossils before the cretaceous, no equus before eohippus, no people before primates, and no Boeing 747's before Kitty Hawk. Not a thing out of place. Anywhere. Ever.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, we don't have faith, we have evidence. Lots and lots of multidisciplinary overlapping multifaceted mutually corroborating evidence

Show off.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know