Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 34 of 47 (248766)
10-04-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:08 PM


Re: oh...it's a science forum?
If so, then how is the extreme giantism represented in extinct reptiles (and longevity required to reach such sizes?),
Um, whales are quite large. Isn't the blue whale the largest animal ever?
Additionally, just because some dinosaurs were large doesn't mean they lived a long time. A recent article (Im gonna say Discover magazine within the last three issues) pointed out that T-Rex went from hatchling to adult size in a remarkable fast period. (like 3 years or so).
An additional, if somewhat off topic question for a literalist -
Why do you think this?
What I mean is this - in Faith's case, for example, she believes that the Bible is literally true because if even one letter of the Bible were a typo then her entire religious belief system would be completely destroyed. Therefore, she can not accept any information that contradicts anything within her belief system, as it is completely unadaptable.
Interesting that those with beliefs that are unadaptable tend to believe that life itself is unadaptable.
So, what's your deal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:08 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 35 of 47 (248767)
10-04-2005 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:43 PM


Re: big stuff
Insect size is limited, I thought, by their particular method of respiration and the oxygen content/air pressure of the atmosphere.
Insects in the past were not particularly bigger than insects of today. Look at bird eating spiders in Brazil, or the giant cave weta, or the madagascar hissing cockroach. Them buggers are big.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:43 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 47 (248768)
10-04-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:58 PM


Re: no offense taken
Today there are fish and amphibians. In the fossil record there are fish and amphibians.
Yet, you accept that fish turned into amphibians, right?
You're kidding right?
You MUST know that ToErs don't say that ALL fish TURNED INTO amphibians.
You don't honestly think that that's what Theory of Evolution is? Do you?
No, seriously, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:58 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-12-2005 4:04 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 37 of 47 (248769)
10-04-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
10-03-2005 10:31 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
As evolution occurs due to genetic mutations, (as I understand it from reading this forum), then is it not conceivable that the evolutionary process, through genetic mutations caused the average life span to be considerably reduced from what it was a few thousand years back.
But what would be the natural selection benefit of this? My understand of these biblical supermen is that they were able to have kids well into their 600s.
Obviously the more time that you can have healthy kids, the more kids you will have, the more your genes will be passed on, the more likely future generations will live as long as you do.
A vastly reduced longevity would be heavily selected against unless, in Noah's day, people didn't reach sexual maturity until they were 300 or so. In which case, new humans (or Rabbit People, or Rabbi-T people) would out breed them soundly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 10-03-2005 10:31 PM GDR has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 47 (248770)
10-04-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
10-03-2005 10:49 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
As I understand evolutionary change it seems to stay realtively dormant for long periods and then it goes in spurts.
This is punctuated equilibrium.
It's not so much that evolution stays dormant, it's that there are few available spots to be taken up.
Think about it like this. In the early 1990s there weren't that many new businesses because, unless you invented a brand new product or service, there was already someone out there doing whatever it is you do. You, as a pizza guy, have to compete with established chains, etc.
However, when the Internet Boom came along, suddenly a vast new area of resources opened up. The number of new businesses went through the roof. Some were adaptations on existing businesses (Amazon.com) others were completely new (ivillage.com). Some succeeded massively, many many others failed.
It's much the same with evolution. The dinosaurs were doing well and mammals barely had a foothold. Then, whammo Asteroid, dinosaurs take a powder and mammals have access to the resources.
Suddenly, even a minor evolutionary change, gives Mammal A access to some untapped resource. Where as in the past, that resource would have been already being consumed by Dinosaur A.
This doesn't need to be trigger by disaster either. Say Animal B developes a way to consume plastic as food. Suddenly, dumps are a gold mine for this creature. We'd expect it to really take off and do well. We'd also expect that different versions of this creature would evolve. Perhaps one that digs very well. Or one that is better at eating plastic bottles. Or one that's better at finding plastic trashbags. Etc.
Hope all this makes sense, because WOW, I've really gone off topic.
Sorry, back to Bible Time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 10-03-2005 10:49 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nighttrain, posted 10-05-2005 8:46 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 41 of 47 (249316)
10-05-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nighttrain
10-05-2005 8:46 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
hehe sort of, but T-rex, while a very impressive skeleton isn't necessarily a super-species.
Termites, rats, aligators - these guys are the true Bill Gates of hte animal world

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nighttrain, posted 10-05-2005 8:46 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024