Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fish on the Ark?
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 76 of 91 (448708)
01-14-2008 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by imageinvisible
01-14-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
So let's take a look at your evidence;
imageinvisible writes:
It would be very off topic to go into much detail here concerning the ancestry of man. I will howevery show you my sources and give you a quick rundown.{Link to AiG}
I saw nothing in your post, or in the page you link to that resembled evidence. I saw a number of unsubstantiated claims, but no actual evidence of a "DNA bottleneck".
imageinvisible writes:
Granny writes:
Are you saying that all humans are genetically identical?
Identical in that there is only one race, Human.
That is not what you previously said. You took this quote from Wikipedia ;
quote:
Genetic testing has revealed that all the specimens {of wollemi pine} are genetically indistinguishable
and claimed that;
imageinvisible writes:
This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans
All being of one species is not comparable to an entire species being genetically indistinguishable.
As for your salinity claims, I was intrigued to read this section of the Austin and Humphries paper that your AiG link seems to be basing its argument upon;
quote:
The world inventory of modern marine halite deposits must be accumulating today at a rate of less than 1 x 108 kg/yr. Thus, the flux of Na+ in modern marine halite deposition is: B4 < 4 x 107 kg/yr. Today's oceanic output of Na+ as halite is trivial when compared to the modern river input.
Original source here.
They seem to be assuming that because they see little halite deposition in modern oceans, that means that they can safely extrapolate backwards, and work out what the rates were in the past. This sounds just like the nineteenth century uniformitarianism that you are so critical of.
It is also deeply misguided, since it ignores the vast halite deposits that have been laid down in the past, as is evidenced by the deposits exploited by salt mining.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 3:21 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 77 of 91 (449678)
01-18-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by imageinvisible
01-14-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
quote:
Until believers in uniformitarianism can provide evidence of their previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume that the uniformitarian principle is true. I believe that there is a thread on this if you would like to go there and debate it further Obvious Child. There is a conciderable amount of observational data which calls into question the UP.
Such as?
There is no previous state of physics other then the one in the singularity of origin.
The basic problem I have with your argument is that it leaves no evidence. Why would a radical shift in physics leave absolutely no proof of ever existing? Furthermore, as I understand biblical arguments prior to the fall, things did not eat other and death was something entirely new after the fall. The problem is no such evidence exists for radical changes in the blink of an eye. Essentially we should see an organism that has the parts to self synthesize food and then find one after the fall with the parts necessary to digest food from other sources. That simply doesn't exist. That's not physics, but you get the point.
I want to see an argument for why such a radical change in the very fundamentals of physics would leave absolutely no trace of ever existing.
Until then uniformitarianism is accepted. If you can provide a better model that has evidence and addresses the key problem of leaving no trace, you may have a point. until then...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 3:21 AM imageinvisible has not replied

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 5768 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 78 of 91 (450328)
01-21-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
12-18-2007 5:56 PM


This is so easy to answer even I can answer it.
There is only one fish kind. The fish kind before the flood was not sensitive to the salinity of the water. After the flood, the fish kind micro-evolved into many types like the salmon, shark, arowana, and dolphin. But they all still belong to the fish kind because we know that macro-evolution is not possible but micro-evolution is.
So something evolving into 1. in one line of evolution a shark, and 2. another line of evolution a dolphin (sharks are fish, dolphins are mammals) is not macro-evolution?!
ohhhh wait, are you making fun of Noah's Ark? lol I hope so...
Edited by TheNaturalist, : because f*** you, thats why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 5:56 PM Taz has not replied

  
1071
Member (Idle past 5896 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 79 of 91 (464402)
04-25-2008 12:13 PM


Hydroplate theory
Wow. This is a great thread! There are so many good posts and points on both sides.
Okay I want to put my 2 cents in.
First even though i feel that this and the salt issue is off topic I want to post a quick response to:
Taz in Message 13 writes:
Personally, I'm surprised I haven't seen a creationist at EvC argue that the dolphin and whale belong to the "fish kind" yet. Before coming here, at other forums I had to explain a million times that dolphins and whales ain't no fish. They're not even cold blooded.
... The Kingdoms, Phylums, Subphylums and Infraphylums didn't come around until way after the bible was written. IMO, they saw it in the water and said.. "fish"
-------
my response to the thread topic
-------
I think the fish died during the flood by the hot water and massive disruption of sediment (buried in mud) from the fountains of the deep breaking up. In other words Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. There are several theories on the great deluge and catastrophology, but from what I have seen thus far, this one explains the fish dying the best.
Edited by antiLIE, : i really should preview lol...

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 1:01 PM 1071 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 80 of 91 (464412)
04-25-2008 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by 1071
04-25-2008 12:13 PM


Re: Hydroplate theory
antiLIE writes:
I think the fish died during the flood by the hot water and massive disruption of sediment (buried in mud) from the fountains of the deep breaking up. In other words Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. There are several theories on the great deluge and catastrophology, but from what I have seen thus far, this one explains the fish dying the best.
You're making less and less credible your claims not to be a creationist. How is your paper trail at EvC Forum any less contradictory than someone saying, for example, "I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. What's that? Am I a Christian? No, of course not, why do you ask?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by 1071, posted 04-25-2008 12:13 PM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 1071, posted 04-25-2008 1:09 PM Percy has replied

  
1071
Member (Idle past 5896 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 81 of 91 (464416)
04-25-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy
04-25-2008 1:01 PM


Re: Hydroplate theory
PERCY writes:
You're making less and less credible your claims not to be a creationist.
I am a creationists. I really am not understandeing your post.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 3:48 PM 1071 has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2008 6:21 PM 1071 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 82 of 91 (464445)
04-25-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by 1071
04-25-2008 1:09 PM


Re: Hydroplate theory
antiLIE writes:
I am a creationists. I really am not understandeing your post.
Wasn't it you who in another thread said, when it was suggested you were a creationist, responded something like, "I never claimed to be a creationist."
If I've got this right, then it is nice to finally have a clear statement from you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by 1071, posted 04-25-2008 1:09 PM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by 1071, posted 04-25-2008 3:59 PM Percy has replied

  
1071
Member (Idle past 5896 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 83 of 91 (464446)
04-25-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
04-25-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Hydroplate theory
OH!! No.. i said, I never claimed not to be a creationists.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 3:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 5:16 PM 1071 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 84 of 91 (464458)
04-25-2008 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by 1071
04-25-2008 3:59 PM


Re: Hydroplate theory
Oh, okay. But I'm still not sure I understand your position, because what I see contains a significant contradiction. On the one hand you say you believe neither creationism nor evolution is science, but on the other hand you've offered scientific arguments in support of creationist positions, e.g., hydroplate theory in this thread, a Tiktaalik analysis in another thread, etc.
If you really believe creationism isn't science, then arguing for it on the basis of science makes no sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by 1071, posted 04-25-2008 3:59 PM 1071 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 6:26 PM Percy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 85 of 91 (464468)
04-25-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
04-25-2008 5:16 PM


Re: Hydroplate theory
FYI, Percy.
Anti has explicitly stated that s/he believes that neither evolution nor creationism are science.
Message 273.
Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab. They are both the study of Origins.
The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 5:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 91 (464637)
04-27-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by 1071
04-25-2008 1:09 PM


link
Hellow antiLie,
I am a creationists.
You have also said a couple of times that you "disagree with evolution" - would you join me on the new thread, "Evolution is simple. What's to disagree with?", to discuss what you disagree with concerning evolution and why?
Thanks.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by 1071, posted 04-25-2008 1:09 PM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by 1071, posted 04-29-2008 8:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
1071
Member (Idle past 5896 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 87 of 91 (464769)
04-29-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
04-27-2008 6:21 PM


Re: link
Respondents please keep your replies on topic. Issues not related to the topic should be taken up in other threads. --Admin
RAZD; they closed the thread, here is my reply.
Okay the question was asked why I disagree with evolution. You said "Note that this is how science operates: take observations, develop conclusions from those observations, formulate a theory based on those conclusions, and then test the theory." I agree. The difference is your starting point. What I mean is the basis of foundation. We should follow science wherever it may lead, but we as humans have made it a medium to justify our belief in origin (this includes naturalists). My belief in origin is supernatural; begins and ends with the Massoretic and Koine scriptures. This is why I disagree with Evolution. My starting point is faith in my God, the creator and destroyer of all. Biological macroevolution requires long periods of time for dramatic changes to take effect. I am very aware of the assumptions evolutionists make about creationists not understanding how or what macroevolution is. I do know and understand it. I do not assume that one kind of animal decided to change to another kind. I understand that macroevolution is the same as microevolution just added time that diversely extends the change and result from speciation. This is my issue. I believe that we did not have the time claimed by the assumptions made by some evidences. I am not denying evidence by making this statement. I am denying the Conclusions made based on the evidence. I remember reading some one on this forum made the statement about if we deny evolution then we throw out all of the other fields of science like geology, paleontology and cosmology. I disagree. I believe that the evidence and results from study and examination from the scientific fields can be interpreted in favor of short time instead of long times. This is also a debate in hermeneutical studies as well. I could mention some of the evidences and scientific studies like gravitational time dilation and universal vs local times, radiometric dating .etc but this is another argument all together. This is the answer I give to the question about why I "disagree" with evolution. Time.
Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2008 6:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2008 9:41 PM 1071 has not replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2008 8:53 PM 1071 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 91 (464840)
04-29-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by 1071
04-29-2008 8:38 AM


Re: link
RAZD; they closed the thread, here is my reply.
... Biological macroevolution requires long periods of time for dramatic changes to take effect. ... I believe that we did not have the time claimed by the assumptions made by some evidences. ...
We can discuss what you think are "dramatic" changes on the "Dogs will be Dogs wil be ???" thread, and we can discuss the time issue on the "Age Correlations and an Old Earth", especially as ...
Respondents please keep your replies on topic. Issues not related to the topic should be taken up in other threads. --Admin
... there's no fish here ...
Edited by RAZD, : dogs and fish?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by 1071, posted 04-29-2008 8:38 AM 1071 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 91 (464904)
04-30-2008 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by 1071
04-29-2008 8:38 AM


reopened
see Evolution Theory Explains Diversity - same thread, new name, new forum ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by 1071, posted 04-29-2008 8:38 AM 1071 has not replied

  
Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 5811 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 90 of 91 (476440)
07-23-2008 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AreWeNotMen?
12-18-2007 12:43 PM


If you can believe one miracle, you may as well believe a million.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AreWeNotMen?, posted 12-18-2007 12:43 PM AreWeNotMen? has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by obvious Child, posted 07-24-2008 2:37 AM Libmr2bs 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