Creationism - a clearer picture?

You still haven't explained how wild lions get milk and processed rice, TC. And malnutrition would have contributed to disease susceptibility, so you can't make a claim that the premature death of the animal wasn't related to its diet, it is a distinct possibility. You seem to have overlooked again the fact that captive lions should live to be 25, Tyke only made it to 9.And your root premise is not falsifiable. From AiG's footnote: [QUOTE][b]The Bible does not give us details of how the change from plant-eating to meat-eating has occurred after the Fall; one possibility is by divine ‘redesign’. Hence, even if lions today did need meat to survive, it would not invalidate Genesis.[/QUOTE][/b]So you're wasting our time with a non-scientific presumption, because if we were to completely defeat your argument this view of the pre-Flood world would persist.

Actually,its likely that vitamin deficiency is exactly what caused Tyke to die from a viral infection. The Lion obviously was never very healthy and would likely have dies in mere months in the wild. As for the other Lion in 1936 thats at best hear say,although i understand the need for creationist to cling to whatever shred of would be evidence they can find,since the bulk of science does not support their wild claims

A little bitter today?

"Actually,its likely that vitamin deficiency is exactly what caused Tyke to die from a viral infection."

quote:

---

Most cases of viral pneumonia are usually mild and resolve spontaneously without specific treatment.

​

"Pneumonia." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

"The Lion obviously was never very healthy and would likely have dies in mere months in the wild."
--By what cause would it have died? Also, little-tyke was 'very' healthy:Vegetarian Lioness
by James A. Peden - http://www.newveg.av.org/animals/vegetarianlioness.htm

quote:

---

This particular big cat, in her prime and perfect health, chose a more gentle way of life, vegetarian!

---

"As for the other Lion in 1936 thats at best hear say,although i understand the need for creationist to cling to whatever shred of would be evidence they can find,since the bulk of science does not support their wild claims"
--Lets not be ignorant, you have yet to explain to me why this feline is not significant by its number, being just one example (along with the other I gave you).------------------

"You still haven't explained how wild lions get milk and processed rice, TC. And malnutrition would have contributed to disease susceptibility, so you can't make a claim that the premature death of the animal wasn't related to its diet, it is a distinct possibility. You seem to have overlooked again the fact that captive lions should live to be 25, Tyke only made it to 9."
--See Previous post."So you're wasting our time with a non-scientific presumption, because if we were to completely defeat your argument this view of the pre-Flood world would persist."
--Note: TC isn't AiG. Yes it would still persist, just as Evolution persisted when Piltdown man was found a fraud. And it is falsifiable, you have to show me that this was from vitamin deficiency and then explain why it lived to such an age withough the vitamines it supposedly must have had in much larger quantities than she did.------------------

Darwin Storm:Perhaps some of the following articles will satisfy your long awaited request to "lay down some of the theories of creation science and put forth supporting evidence." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_people.aspMany, if not all, of the above topics have been and still are being discussed on this board (as indicated by TC).Sorry about simply providing a bunch of links but I thought it best to just 'lay some stuff' down initially.------------------
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face - Jack Handey

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-02-2002]

"Actually,its likely that vitamin deficiency is exactly what caused Tyke to die from a viral infection."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Most cases of viral pneumonia are usually mild and resolve spontaneously without specific treatment."Pneumonia." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------LUD:And the level of health of a given creature is usually quite relevent to weather or nor it dies from pneumonia...This Lion has lived all her existance in captivity,being cared for by people that made every efforts for her not to die...which she did nevertheless. The logical conclusion is that in the wild,Type would never have reached adulthood,even if her own mother haden't been bent of killing her at birth."The Lion obviously was never very healthy and would likely have dies in mere months in the wild."
--By what cause would it have died? Also, little-tyke was 'very' healthy:Vegetarian Lioness
by James A. Peden - http://www.newveg.av.org/animals/vegetarianlioness.htmquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This particular big cat, in her prime and perfect health, chose a more gentle way of life, vegetarian!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------LUD: Thats their opinion and it is not substanciated by the fact that she died from pneumonia IN CAPTIVITY WHILE BEING CARED FOR. As for a "gentler" way of life,thats actually dependent on a given POV...i'm not sure the plants she devoured would agree with this "notion of gentleness"..."As for the other Lion in 1936 thats at best hear say,although i understand the need for creationist to cling to whatever shred of would be evidence they can find,since the bulk of science does not support their wild claims"
--Lets not be ignorant, you have yet to explain to me why this feline is not significant by its number, being just one example (along with the other I gave you).LUD:Its not significant because they are obviously what intelligent people refer to as "exceptions to a rule"...every rule has them. Some people have actually been born with two heads,each with a distinct personality. Is this an indication that at one time in the past,we were all two headed beings? No,of course no...its a mutation,more or less isolated from the rest of the human race,just like Tyke was a mutant to her race...and as i said,not even a viable one,since she required constant supervision and care to even reach 1/4 of normal lion life expectancy....as for her playing with chick without harming them,thats not unusual....my sister's cat does the same with our budgee Philiss....the two were inseparable when she lived here. I can name several exemples of animals,normaly carnivores,who actually have loving relationships woth animals they would normally feast upon. Perhaps it was one such exception being observed in the distant past that prompted the biblical quotation of wolves lying down with sheep. It certainly would make a hellavulot more sense than all carnivores having been vegetarians until they were all taken aboard a huge mythical boat to be saved from a mythical global flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Darwin Storm:

​

Perhaps some of the following articles will satisfy your long awaited request to "lay down some of the theories of creation science and put forth supporting evidence."

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asp

​

LUD:Hum..."Our planet, Earth, is the only place in the universe known to have liquid water."...seems to me like a wild claim to be making for someone who never went on other planets....not a good premise for this article....and there is evidence that Europa contains an ocean underneath its ice sheets and that there was once a large sea on Mars...so there goes that theory. The rest of the article is merely nonsense about the salinity of the seas indicating a 6000 years old earth,nonsense which has allready been debunked decades ago....see the explanation at talkorigin.com

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp

​

LUD: see talkorigin for debunking about helium : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_people.asp

​

LUDh my...another baloney sandwitch? the population figures given in AIG assumes that populations have been doubling every 156 years since the flood....thats would mean that 150 years after the flood,16 people build the gigantic tower of Babel....must have been some engineering feat!!!

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
LUDh my...another baloney sandwitch? the population figures given in AIG assumes that populations have been doubling every 156 years since the flood....thats would mean that 150 years after the flood,16 people build the gigantic tower of Babel....must have been some engineering feat!!!

---

[/B][/QUOTE]And its even more impressive given that they were building the pyramids at the same time (Based on Theos assertion that the pyramids are post deluvian structures)....

quote:

---

LUDh my...another baloney sandwitch? the population figures given in AIG assumes that populations have been doubling every 156 years since the flood....thats would mean that 150 years after the flood,16 people build the gigantic tower of Babel....must have been some engineering feat!!!

---

Maybe my math is wrong; according to the figures in the article, the population was possibly doubling every 19 years after the flood as noted below. Where did you come up with the 150 year 16 people figure?"Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10—24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time). This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
...a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.

---

And what do we get if we extrapolate this growth of 3.7% a year to the modern day?N = 8*1.037⁴⁰⁰⁰N = 1.0426*10⁶⁴Which is rather large by anyones standards....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Maybe my math is wrong; according to the figures in the article, the population was possibly doubling every 19 years after the flood as noted below. Where did you come up with the 150 year 16 people figure?

​

"Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10—24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time). This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years."

​

---

Punisher,read the coincidence part of this "article"...they clearly state that it is estimated that the population doubled every 156 years. In any event,the entire thing is completely bogus. First,they give the sons of Noah a given number of sons...then they ASSUME an equal number of daughters,doing this with no scriptural or scientific evidence WHATSOEVER to come up with an average of 8.1 kids per couple...then,that figures becomes 8.53 in the next paragaph,with no explanation for the .43 that was added and the entire thing is build on the ALLREADY PROVEN WRONG assumption that there was a constant population growth....until 80 years ago,the world's population growth looked more like a mild swelling than a growth...then,it exploded to the levels we know today. Oh,and they base much of the article on the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANCIATED NONSENSE BELIEF of people living to be 900...the whole calculation is so shaky that a breeze will topple it any day of the week and twice on sunday...the only way for anyone to buy even half of this nonsense calculation is to be terminally stupid!!!

Punisher,
Before I make any commentary, I want to thank you for actually posting material. In a serious debate, both sides need to be willing to say not only what they believe, buy why they believe it. You are the first one to post information in this thread in support of your arguement.However, the evidence itself has some flaws. You may be interested in them or not. anyways, here we go.1>)Salty ocean. : Yes there is quite of bit of salt in the ocean. Each year more and more salt is deposited in the ocean due to erosion and runoff. However, the vast majority of the salt in the ocean comes from the land covered by the ocean itself. (Hence nearly 2/3 of the oceans salt comes from the land it covers, not run off) Also, The output equations ignore a process called albitization, where the the free ions of salt in water are consumed near oceanic volcaninc activity to form basalt, thus removing salt from the oceans. Also, salt, (along with alot of other minerals deposited in the ocean) are also bound up in living organisms. Even after death, these atoms are bound up in complex molecules, thus removing salt from the ocean.
By the assumption that salt isn't removed fast enough, you must consider other elements alike aluminum. Using the same logic for aluminum, that it statically accumulates in the ocean, we can extrapolate a old age of 100 YEARS! It is a false assumption to say that the oceans are static dumping grounds. Free ions, by there very nature, are unstable, and tend to form molecules with other free ions or other molecules to achieve more stable form ( which has less free energy). Isn't Entropy grand. Its the basis of all chemistry.
For further support I will turn to a quote by Melvin Cook, another creationist. [quote] The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73] (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)
[endquote]
If even other creationists doubt the validity of this evidence, then it kinda makes me wonder why it is still used.2>)Helium, O helium, where art thou Helium? Well, first off, by the article cited, it states that the helium could have a accumulated in only 2 million years. Hmmm, kinda goes past the whole 6 k age limit thing.
But even then, the physics used to prove it are faulty. First off, there are two common forms of helium H3 and H4. Being extremly light molecules, the energy required to accelerate these atoms to escape velocities is actually very low ( roughly a fourth that needed for nitrogen to escape) . Helium 3 is quite able to reach escape velocities in the exosphere. The main point that the article seems to sieze upon is Helium 4, where the escape rate from the exosphere doesn't equal input from particle decay.
Another factor that of helium loss is photoionization by polar winds. [quote] The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +-1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic- field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss. (Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)Dr. Dalrymple goes on to explain that even though our understanding of the helium balance in the atmosphere is incomplete, the situation being very complicated because of various hard-to-calculate factors, we do know one thing. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113)
[end quote]
Note, these are probable mechanisms. However, as also stated such a stituation is complex, and the factors involved are difficult to calculate various factors. Needless to say, using helium in the atmosphere is a poor way to try and calculate the earth's appearant age.3.>Exponential growth of people? It is only in light of modern science (medicine, more effecient agricultural techniques, and a centralization of the population into cities) and culture that we have seen an exponential growth of the human population over the last 200 years. Previous to that, the human population was mostly zero growth, except where the population moved into new regions, and thus new resources were available. The population had swells and falls, but usually net growth remains near zero. As certain technological advances were made, you would see a swell in the population that would plateau as the population expanded due to new resources.
Another major factor we must consider is disease. During the black plauge in europe, nearly 25 million people died, nearly a THIRD of all people in europe at the time. There was a flu epidemic during the first part of this century that killed more than 20 million people, more than was lost in WW2. Disease and hunger are effective population controls.
Using the same logic of unrestricted exponential population growth, lets examine ANY species with a more rapid growth rate. For example, a bacteria population of 8, doubling every hour, you could cover every square inch of the planet with a million bacteria in a week.
Another (very funny example) is using bunny rabbits.
http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/noabun.htmHowever, these two previous examples are proposterous. We readily accept as common logic that these populations are kept in check by availability of resource, by predators, and by disease. The same holds true for humanity through most our history. Its is only due to modern scientific advances that we have created and enviroment where exponential growth of our population could occur.In conclusion, peer review is the best way to improve and refine scientific ideas. If you are able to modify the theory to explain new data, that is wonderful. Inability to do so means the theory must be discarded and a new hypothesis must be created to explain and predict based on the observable data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh i did,when i was younger,i couldn't get enough biology."
--Hm.. I think you forgot some of it.

​

"And you know what biology has taught me?"
--No, but I know what It has taught me, that the old saying that 'biology makes no scence without evolution', is quite wrong, and that biology makes perfect scense untill you come to these words: 'Scientists think...', or 'scientists believe...', then you know what they are about to say.

​

"That the Lion is a carnivore,that it is born to be a carnivore and that it starves to death if it runs out of meat and that there is no fact in science that would lend credence to the hypothesis that lions or their ancestors ever grazed the fields side by side with the antilopes and the gazelles and that ONE MUTANT LION living on vegetables in a CONTROLED ENVIRONEMENT does NOTHING to alter those FACTS."
--If you can tell me two things, I will subside to your argument and withdraw it as invalid if: 1. Tell me why this lion, even being a single one, with its ability means that it is not valid for a population to do the same. 2. Avoid the assertion that because it is a single that it means nothing to alter these very flexible facts (that is if you know some basic biology, genetics, and inheritance).

---

If you can accept that at one stage in the past Lions were herbivorous, when now they are clearly not ... you are accepting
macro-evolution.The physiological changes required to make a modern day lion
herbivorous are immense.The lion in question (who survived on veg.) did so in a controlled,
husbandry situation. There are nutrients that cannot be obtained
from veg. alone that are required by felines. These MUST have
been added as substitutes.If you can point to data which says this was NOT done, I will
start listening to this line of enquiry again. I will attempt
to find data which says these supplements were given ...Biology makes sense without evolution.Biology in general is concerned with the living organisms we SEE
NOW in the world. Where does evolution come into that ??

Quetzal,
I agree with much of your response. I have made multiple assertions in many posts without proper referencing which I have promised to make good on and will do so but let me clarify one thing. Allopatric evolution is not a mechanism. It still does not explain the mechanism of Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory that Gould and others have labelled punctuated mechanism. It is simply a postulate as to why, with darwinian evolution's prediction of finding many transitional forms, there aren't any. What mechanism causes the sudden new morphology of irreducible complexity? There still isn't one.
The Wistar institute did the math in the sixties and concluded that even with 4 billion years, mutation and natural selection cannot account for the macro-evolutionary changes embraced on faith by macro-evolutionists. That was part of the push to punctuated equilibrium.
The Bible predicts the first law of thermodynamics when in Genesis it says God quit creating and the second law is predicted in Genesis when God put the curses put on Adam and eve which is referred to in Romans eight when it says the creation waits to be delivered from the bondage of decay. As well, the Bible predicts the law of biogenesis given to us by Pasteur which evolution violates. More later. I am at work and have to go------------------
theo