As far as the article you posted, I found it to be an interesting illustration about how things adapt to different environments, but not the sort of 1 new rodent species a year we would see if the Flood story happened. The proposition is absurd, and there is no evidence for it.
Really? That’s odd. I found this lovely news story here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...494%255E1702,00.html
It’s about a new species rodent species found in a meat market. Heres a line I found interesting:
New rodent species are discovered at the rate of one every year or so.
So wait, it’s not possible to get one new rodent species a year, yet we are finding a new species a year now? Something doesn’t add up.
Ok. So essentially we bread 1 new rodent species a year for the last 3000 years from squirels? Doesn't this seem a bit far fetched to you?
I said Squirrel-like, not squirrels. There is a difference, and I got that from an evolutionary source.
Let's not forget a herding mentality, nostrils that close to keep water out, slight webbing on their feet, a semi-aquatic lifestyle. Ya know, it's making so much sense now! Capybaras came from squirels. It took 3 years.
No, as you said, we have 3,000 years to get a capybara. Plus you know, beavers and other aquatic rodents have those same features. Also, the order rodentia has less natural variability then what has been isolated by dog breeders. They haven’t had nearly as long to do that. Many species of mouse for instance, look incredibly similar, even though they live at opposite sides of the globe. They only have slight differences, such as the amount of fur on there tails, size, and ear shape. Each of which is quit easy to get in a short amount of time with genetic variation.
Agreed, about the ancestor bit, I meant that. I am sorry if it was unclear. The proposed squirrel-like ancestor would have spawned off the capybera, the guinea pig, the hamster, and the mouse. But you have one problem with your dog analogy, a Great Dane and a Cairn Terrier are different breeds of the same species. A capybera and a Guinea Pig are different species all together!
Let me put it to you this way, if we got one rodent species a year for the last 3000 years, why aren't we getting new rodent species every year today?
You are talking about evolution on a grand scale NotSoBlind. Rodents are not all breeds of squirrel and they possess far more differences than you give them credit for. Note the following:
Yes, rodents are different species, not breeds. But, if you found a population of Great Danes in on area, and of Cairn Terriers in another, without knowing of there common ancestry, would you call them different species, or different breeds? Also, dogs are already a separate species from wolves, and although not yet genetically different to a significant degree, if you gave them 3,000 years to develop the genetic differences, they would get them. Also, as I have already stated, there is more natural variation in dogs then in rodents. And we do get a new species of rodent per year. And again, squirrel-like, not squirrel, plus they are not breeds of squirrel, they are breeds of rodent.
You ever been to a marsh or a swamp? Even the amazon rainforest where a river floods? Well, i can tell you, the trees grow in several feet of water. There is one explanation right off the top of my head.
But, I'll do a bit more research on it and get back to you.
Wait, you just told me the mountains were under the ocean to get the marine fossils on them, now its a few feet of water in a swamp. Please tell me, which is it? Because last I checked, the ocean wasn’t a few feet deep or a swamp.
Now this is what I love about Evolution. Ever ten or twenty years, you throw all evidence that doesn’t agree with your new theories out the window and come up with new evidence.
Nope. The theories are modified and improved. And this is not exclusive to evolution BTW, this is science. It happens in medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. We think one thing, as more evidence accrues we modify what we think.
Science works by creating theories based on current evidence. You then test those theories and modify them as new evidence comes to light. This is how ALL science operates and it works. So if you don't like it, stop going to your doctor because he uses the same methodology.
Actually, if the evidence doesn’t go with the theory, the theory is thrown out, not the evidence. Yet numerous ape-men fossils are thrown out, but we still must have evolved from apes.
Back in the 80's it was thought the bones may not be highly mineralized. Further testing showed that they were. Buddies bones were dug up in the same area yet he has not submitted his findings to any journal, or allowed any other scientists to take a look at what he has. So all we end up with is a guy with a claim.
If someone did find 'unfossilized' dino bones it would be big news. I mean, it would be all over the scientific world. Noble prizes for everyone. And, quite frankly, I hope someone finds some.
Further testing of different bones found in deeper layers showed that those bones were not fossilized. Buddies bones dug up in upper layers haven’t been submitted to any EVOLUTIONARY scientists. Creation scientists have seen them, and they confirm that they are A: Dinosaur bones and B: Unfossilized and unmineralized. For further reference, try here:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Unfossiliz...
Not that they couldn't, but this site has some pictures of a highly advanced society that couldn't avoid a volcanic eruption. In the end, this is all speculation, fact is you have no proof for your theory. Just saying “it might have, maybe, coulda, sorta, happened.” is not enough. You need to show hard evidence that such a thing occurred and so far you haven't been able too.
eHarcourtSchool.com has been retiredFurther, volcanoes and tsunamis are very different. A massive volcanic explosion of the magnitude that produced the Ashfall beds is equivalent to several nuclear bombs. I don't think people could easely outrun those.
Many stone-age area tribes live and have lived around active volcanoes. Cowlitz Indian tribe in Washington USA has lived in the area of two active volcanoes Mt Saint Helens and Mt. Rainer for most of there history, yet in all there history there is no story of anyone being killed in a volcanic eruption, even though they have recorded many eruptions themselves. Also, they could “Outrun” the volcanic blast if they left days before it happened. Volcanoes usually give of signs of eruptions long before they erupt, such as earthquakes around the base, bulges of the mountainside, and animals have been known to flee hours before it erupts. When your life depends on knowing if something if a volcano will erupt soon, you pay attention.
Yes, in la la land where every child survives to maturity with no disease. Where every female produces the perfect amount of offspring in her lifetime. Where every individual manages to migrate thousands of miles over rugged terrain and hostile environments without a trace. You know Rhinos are endangered right? Do you know how difficult it is to breed them? Seriously, breeding programs are having a had time getting their numbers up and thats WITH the several thousand Rhinos we have. Imagine from 7 specimens.
First, it would be two rhinos, not seven. Rhinos are hard to bred in captivity, in the wild they bred fine. There endangered because humans poached many of them, and continue to poach them. If you still have a problem take away 50% of the population, or even 75% of that number, that’s still more then enough.
That my friend, is a perfect example of an ad hoc explanation. No worse than my “In the days of Icarus the air was thicker”. There is no evidence for any of this and its intent is solely to make excuses for the flood. “Special pleading” also comes to mind.
Further, the mud! All those torrential rains and raging flood waters would have wipped up tons and tons of mud and built up layers and layers of sediment. The fish would have drowned. And I am glad that many species of fish could withstand some shifts in salinity, but you are out of your mind if you are saying All fish!
As a person who has actually maintained a salt watter tank will tell you, you have to check the pH and salinity every other day and adjust the levels constantly because if you don't everything will die. That's a fact.
Actually, I have maintained several fresh water tanks. Once several years ago, I got a group of three fancy guppies, (Two female, one male) and put them in my freshwater tank with three Zebra Danios, a catfish, and a Siamese fighting fish. Well, I loved up sites on live bearers on the net. They all said guppies should be in brackish water. So, me being a little aquarium dumb at the time, I put several spoonfuls of salt into the twenty gallon tank. All the fish, even though all but the guppies were strictly freshwater, were absolutely fine.
Here are two articles with a more in depth explanation of how freshwater fish and saltwater fish could have survived the flood:
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
How Did Fish Survive Noah’s Flood?
| Answers in Genesis
Ass to your comparing the salt water content to Icarus’s thicker air, the waters during the flood would have had less salt, as all freshwater in the world would have been emptied into it. And as the articles I showed you say, many fish and other marine species can tolerate less salty, or even fresh water, and many fresh water species can adapt to salt water.
And no, not all fish back then would have survived. Over 90% of all fossils are marine life. And please tell me, how would mudslides after fish in the open ocean? The mud would have dispersed long before reaching them. Plus, fish from shallower areas would have had ample time to swim away from mud flows. And yes, coral reefs would have been buried by mud and broken up in earthquakes. But the coral polyps could have survived floating in the open waters outside of there coral skeletons. Then, after the waters subsided, built the reefs.
I'll avoid the others as they are not necessarily on topic. I will simply point out the dishonesty of creationist literature:
1)Creationists Lie: Animals all came from unique 'kinds'. Why is it a lie? No proof, or definition, of what a kind is yet it is constantly put forward.
2)Creationists Lie: Where did the water go? Common answer: The world was surrounded by a vapor canopy. No proof of any such thing yet still put forward. A lie.
3)Creationists Lie: You believe we all evolved from a bannana! A lie. No one belives that.
4)Creationists Lie: There are no transitional forms! A lie. There is an embarassment of riches when it comes to transitional forms.
1) Ok, one last time, I will define “Kind” To you.
But what is a created ”kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ”species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept.
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My!
| Answers in Genesis
There you go, there is your definition of kind. You can read the article to see the whole explanation. So basically, since horses can breed with donkeys, they are of the same kind. The same goes for tigers and lions, Llamas and Camels, ect. I will go further into proof of kinds in a moment.
2) Uh, you mixed question one: “Where did the water go” with a possible answer to: “Where did the water come from” Therefor, it is not a creationist lie, as it is a mix of a question and answer to different question.
3) That was a joke made about since our DNA is 98% similar to a chimps, evolutionist say they are our relatives/ancestors. And then since we share half our genes with bananas, by the same reasoning, where half banana! This was a joke people, they shouldn’t be taken as facts or lies.
4) Odd, every time someone brings one up, I have been able to disprove it, and show a quote from an evolutionary scientist that agrees its not really a transitional form.
Ok, after seeing the “Creationists Lies” I think you didn’t get my first post about us having the same evidence, let me try again.
The fact/evidence, is neutral. We both have the same stars, the same fossils, the same rocks, and the same animals and plants, there all the same facts. Its how you look at and interpret the facts based on ones presuppositions that makes it proof of one or the other. Its because we have two different presuppositions we get two different conclusions from the same fact.
For instance, since we are already on the subject of “Kinds” of plants and animals, I will use them to show what happens when I look at the current fact and use my biblical presuppositions to build my thinking.
Now, us YECs believe that all living species of land animals today descended from pair or in some instances groups of seven animals that came off Noah’s Ark after the biblical flood. (although in some cases of rapidly breeding animals such as lagomorphs and rodents, numerous descendents and the original pairs could have come off the ark) Now the two of each kind (Or seven) had a built in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent useful variation.
Also, Each original group was presumably genetically and reproductively isolated from other such groups, yet was able to interbreed within its own group. Hence the original kinds would truly have earned the modern biological definition of ”species’. The more variability in the original gene pool, the more easily can such new groups arise. However, each ”splitting’ reduces the potential for further change and therefore even this is limited. All the descendants of such an original kind which was once a species, may then end up being classified together in a much higher taxonomic category - for example: family.
Heres a diagram the scientists from AIG put together:
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
So, hypothetically, created kind A was a biological species with probably a large amount of genetic potential. Note in the diagram that A may continue as an unchanged group, as with may of the subgroups. Splitting off of the daughter population doesn’t necessarily mean extinction of the parent population, as wolves are still around even though dogs came about.
Now, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2, E3, P1, P2, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 are all different species, reproductively isolated. But all the functionally efficient genetic information they contain was also present in A. (They presumably carry some mutational defects as well).
Now, let’s assume that the original kind A has become extinct somehow, and also the populations X, B, C, D, E, P and Q are extinct. (But not D1, D2, etc.) If X carried some of the original information from A, which is not represented in B or C, then that information is now lost forever. Therefore, in spite of the fact that there are many ”new species’ which were not originally present, we would have witnessed conservation of most of the information, loss of some, and nothing new added apart from mutations (harmful defects or just meaningless ”noise’ in the genetic information).
So, now we have several new species, all descendents of species A, even though they all look at least somewhat different from A, and probably in most cases very different from A. You can even see this happening today even, just look in the news, or at your local animal breeders. New species are discovered every day, and some species have been shown to adapt quickly to new environments, becoming new species in a relatively short amount of time. Also, breeders of dogs, cats, horses, and other domestic animals have produced groups of animals completely different from there ancestors in only a few generations. Yet no one has been able to make a dog into a totally new “Kind”, just a new variation of the original.
Now, show me how your way of thinking and based on your beliefs make sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.
As for evolutionists twisting facts . .. Well, I won’t get into that. *Cough* Piltdown Man *Cough*
Bravo! Got anything over 100 years old? Further, who exposed the hoax? Give you a hint: Scientists. Give you another hint: Evolutionary scientists.
Yes, after letting it sit in museums for over fifty years, and even having “Experts” Examine the fossil and confirm that it was real.
Now THAT’S the difference between Noah’s ark and the Icarus myth. I have shown you fossilized animals that drowned in the flood.
You have done no such thing! You have showed animals that may have drowned in A flood, not THE flood. Retract that immediately or post some evidence.
How about the fact many of the dinosaurs in dinoisaur graveyards (Colorado, northeastern Wyoming, ect) are found in marine sediments?
Oh, and not to mention this quote about the Dinosaur Bone Beds in Montana:
Horner and Gorman describe the bone-bed as follows:
”How could any mud slide, no matter how catastrophic, have the force to take a two- or three-ton animal that had just died and smash it around so much that its femur”still embedded in the flesh of its thigh”split lengthwise?’
Page not found - Suite 101
There has been no flood or mudslide in recent history to account for the fossil evidence we find now.
I showed you other accounts of a worldwide flood. And I showed you geological evidence for the flood. That’s what makes it different, evidence. And that’s why I believe in Noah’s Flood, and why I don’t believe in the myth of Icarus, or evolution.
Again, you have done no such thing! There is no Geological evidence for THE flood. Not one iota.
As I have stated, evidence is neutral. But if you insist . .
1: Grand Canyon limestone is of a type that isn’t set down over long periods of time. Instead, evidence indicates raid set down by fast flowing currents of water.
2: Uluru and Kata Tjuta in Australia the ubiquitous fresh feldspar crystals in the arkose that makes up the rocks would never have survived the claimed millions of years.
3: Devils Tower; It is clear from the length of the columns that the whole body of rock was once a single pool of lava, not a series of small flows, one on top of the other. The lava eruption must have been quite rapid for the whole volume to accumulate before it started to cool and solidify.
Ect, ect, ect. Just go type Flood Geology into the search bar at the AIG web site, or even Yahoo.
Oh, by the way, I made a little mistake when I did my 472,000 land animal species thing. I never bothered to take out the 300,000 species of plants, as I figured the 1.7 mil species was only animals. So now we are down to 172,000 land animals.
™ Version 4.2