Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Creationism gets ANOTHER slap in the face!
3 years ago  ::  Aug 30, 2011 - 10:31PM #1
Slipnish
Posts: 3,869

As this graph shows, significant changes in  body size - one evolutionary trait that can be tracked through the  fossil record - take about one million years before major changes  accumulate and persist. (Graphic courtesy of Oregon State University)


In research that will help address a long-running debate  and apparent contradiction between short- and long-term evolutionary  change, scientists have discovered that although evolution is a constant  and sometimes rapid process, the changes that hit and stick tend to  take a long time.


Give or take a little, one million years seems to be the magic number.


A new study, published this week in , combined for the first time data from short periods such as 10-100 years with much longer evidence found in the over millions of years.


www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-fast-evolut...


No doubt about it.  Creationism is fake at best, and a psychosis at worst. 


So the question is, when the animals stepped off the ark a few thousand years ago, how did they manage to get from one "kind" to another WITHOUT the required time?


And no, it isn't an "interpretation of data. 


And for the record:


""This isn't just some chance genetic mutation that takes over," he said.  "Evolutionary adaptations are caused by some force of natural selection  such as environmental change, predation or anthropogenic disturbance,  and these forces have to continue and become widespread for the change  to persist and accumulate. That's slower and more rare than one might  think."


In other words, this is how mutations add up...and stay that way.  it's time ladies and gents, simple, straightforward time.

I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it.

~Any Creationist~
(But honestly Douglas Adams)

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 1:38AM #2
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,015

Aug 30, 2011 -- 10:31PM, Slipnish wrote:



Slipnish: So the question is, when the animals stepped off the ark a few thousand years ago, how did they manage to get from one "kind" to another WITHOUT the required time?


And no, it isn't an "interpretation of data.




iama:  The Creation account in Genesis 1 states, very clearly, that ALL of the KINDs of plant and animal life-forms were created on Day 3, Day 5 and Day 6 of The Creation week.


What exists, today, is a great variety WITHIN each of the created KINDs of plant and animal life-forms.  These KINDs, existing worldwide, having phenotypical variations, if brought back together, would hybridize, or reproduce with each / some of the variations of their originally created KINDs, as per, Genesis 1.


Certainly, the fossil record is the exact same data, and the living plant and animal life-forms are there somewhere in the world's different habitats / environments / world-locations.


Same data, different interpretation.


 


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 2:49AM #3
d_p_m
Posts: 9,013

Aug 31, 2011 -- 1:38AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Aug 30, 2011 -- 10:31PM, Slipnish wrote:



Slipnish: So the question is, when the animals stepped off the ark a few thousand years ago, how did they manage to get from one "kind" to another WITHOUT the required time?


And no, it isn't an "interpretation of data.




iama:  The Creation account in Genesis 1 states, very clearly, that ALL of the KINDs of plant and animal life-forms were created on Day 3, Day 5 and Day 6 of The Creation week.


What exists, today, is a great variety WITHIN each of the created KINDs of plant and animal life-forms.  These KINDs, existing worldwide, having phenotypical variations, if brought back together, would hybridize, or reproduce with each / some of the variations of their originally created KINDs, as per, Genesis 1.


Certainly, the fossil record is the exact same data, and the living plant and animal life-forms are there somewhere in the world's different habitats / environments / world-locations.


Same data, different interpretation.





Very different data, very different interpretation.


You consider the bible to be 'data' wheras science does not.


Science also has data like 'this rock is 2 billion years old' which you do not have.


And science clearly shows the fossil record to support evolution over 3 billion years or more, which is not your interpretation. The big difference is the science makes sense and your 'forced assumptions' do not, as they do not match the data.

PHARAOH IRY-HOR, FROM THE 3100s BC, IS THE FIRST HUMAN WHOSE NAME WE KNOW.

-- cool facts from xkcd


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 2:52AM #4
steven_guy
Posts: 11,615

Aug 31, 2011 -- 1:38AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Aug 30, 2011 -- 10:31PM, Slipnish wrote:



Slipnish: So the question is, when the animals stepped off the ark a few thousand years ago, how did they manage to get from one "kind" to another WITHOUT the required time?


And no, it isn't an "interpretation of data.




iama:  The Creation account in Genesis 1 states, very clearly, that ALL of the KINDs of plant and animal life-forms were created on Day 3, Day 5 and Day 6 of The Creation week.


Well, it's wrong. That didn't happen.


What exists, today, is a great variety WITHIN each of the created KINDs


"Kinds" is not a scientific word and it is virtually meaningless.


of plant and animal life-forms.  These KINDs, existing worldwide, having phenotypical variations, if brought back together, would hybridize, or reproduce with each / some of the variations of their originally created KINDs, as per, Genesis 1.


But nothing in Genesis is true. That's a problem for you, isn't it?


Certainly, the fossil record is the exact same data


No it doesn't. It demonstrates evolution of a period of around 3 billion years and no global floods ever.


, and the living plant and animal life-forms are there somewhere in the world's different habitats / environments / world-locations.


Same data, different interpretation.


One set of data and only one rational scientific interpretation. Anything else is lala-fantasy land stuff.


 


.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 12:44PM #5
Ridcully
Posts: 3,745

Aug 31, 2011 -- 1:38AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Certainly, the fossil record is the exact same data, and the living plant and animal life-forms are there somewhere in the world's different habitats / environments / world-locations.


Same data, different interpretation.





A major problem with this assertion is that the fossil record shows the rise and extinction of different species over time.  For instance,  70 million years ago theropods were a major type of predators, but 70 thousand years ago all the theropods are gone and we have cats (in the grand, i.e., felids) as a major type of predator. Conversely, there were no tigers around when T. Rex hunted prey.


Back to Slip's point, how do Creationists account for the apparent million year time frame needed to "fix" major phenotypic changes?   Even assuming a pool of all possible kinds at some point, it still takes a million years of major changes to stabilize. 


 

"Things just happen, what the hell."  Didactylos
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 5:01PM #6
EarthScientist
Posts: 3,419

If real science articles are a case of being slapped in the face, then every creationist article is just them punching themselves in the face.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 5:02PM #7
EarthScientist
Posts: 3,419

Aug 31, 2011 -- 1:38AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Same data, different interpretation.


 




Nope, creationists ignore 99.99...% of the data.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 6:39PM #8
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,015

Aug 31, 2011 -- 2:49AM, d_p_m wrote:



Slipnish: So the question is, when the animals stepped off the ark a few thousand years ago, how did they manage to get from one "kind" to another WITHOUT the required time?


And no, it isn't an "interpretation of data.




iama:  The Creation account in Genesis 1 states, very clearly, that ALL of the KINDs of plant and animal life-forms were created on Day 3, Day 5 and Day 6 of The Creation week.


What exists, today, is a great variety WITHIN each of the created KINDs of plant and animal life-forms.  These KINDs, existing worldwide, having phenotypical variations, if brought back together, would hybridize, or reproduce with each / some of the variations of their originally created KINDs, as per, Genesis 1.


Certainly, the fossil record is the exact same data, and the living plant and animal life-forms are there somewhere in the world's different habitats / environments / world-locations.


Same data, different interpretation.


d_p_m: Very different data, very different interpretation.



iama:  How can the vast worldwide sedimentary layers and the fossils which they contain, be DIFFERENT DATA?? The fossils are the fossils. They don't change just because a creationist is looking at them, vs an evolutionist!


d_p_m: You consider the bible to be 'data' wheras science does not.



iama: There are many scientists who take The Bible as reliable historical data.  Science is neutral regarding The Creation and The Bible.  Science is the human activity conducted upon the data of The Creation and of The Bible.  Theology is the science related to The Bible.


d_p_m: Science also has data like 'this rock is 2 billion years old' which you do not have.



iama:  Not so!  The Creation has given scientists data, which evolution scientists have interpreted as evidencing that 'this rock is 2 billion years old.' Scientists DON'T have the historical parameters related to the history of 'this rock.' What scientists have gathered is radioactive ions decaying at a steady rate, now.  There are other data evidences which can cause a scientist to interpret 'this rock is NOT 2 billion years old.'


If you are serious about understanding the Creationist's understandings concerning radiometric dating, take the time to read through the following, especially, the second one:


How potassium-argon dating works


 


A Christian Response to Radiometric Dating


 


d_p_m: And science clearly shows the fossil record to support evolution over 3 billion years or more, which is not your interpretation. The big difference is the science makes sense and your 'forced assumptions' do not, as they do not match the data.




iama:  The geological science has determined that the world wide sediments, including those existing in the mountain ranges which are sedimentary-laid-down-deposits, were laid down by catastrophic waters.  The fossils contained within those same sedimentary layers, worldwide, record the catastrophic destruction of The Flood waters as they, firstly, destroyed marine life, and the terrestrial life, subsequently. Much of the terrestrial life was not fossilized, but died, decayed, or was consumed.  The '3 billion years of more,' figure is there, ONLY, because of the speculation's requirements for long-ages!


The biblical The Flood, explains the sedimentary layers, worldwide, containing the myriad of catastrophically destroyed life-forms.  There are no 'forced assumptions' required when The Bible's Genesis' accounts are taken as historical reality recordings of what actually happened.


 


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 6:48PM #9
d_p_m
Posts: 9,013

Aug 31, 2011 -- 6:39PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Science is the human activity conducted upon the data of The Creation



There is no scientific basis for 'The Creation'. Any assumption that there is/was a Creation or a Creator is unscientifc. There is no 'data of The Creation'


 


Aug 31, 2011 -- 6:39PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

and of The Bible. 



The bible is not scientific data, it's a book of myths, and tribal history. It contains bias and errors, and where the contents are amenable to scientific testing, often provably wrong.


 


Aug 31, 2011 -- 6:39PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Theology is the science related to The Bible.




Theology is NOT science of any kind. Theology is a collection of shared or not so shared opinions about religion, and different theologies come to vastly different conclusions about theology, depending on who is doing the theology. For example, many aspects of your theology would be laughable to a Roman Catholic Theologian, and even more so to a Hindu or Zoroastrian theologian.


Science, on the other hand, converges on the same testable conclusions, no matter who is doing the science.

PHARAOH IRY-HOR, FROM THE 3100s BC, IS THE FIRST HUMAN WHOSE NAME WE KNOW.

-- cool facts from xkcd


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2011 - 6:56PM #10
d_p_m
Posts: 9,013

Aug 31, 2011 -- 6:39PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


A Christian Response to Radiometric Dating





Tasman Walker is another engineer pretending to be a scientist.


And he midrepresents radionucleide dating techniques.


He's a little too high profile to be simply ignorant, so he's another liar.

PHARAOH IRY-HOR, FROM THE 3100s BC, IS THE FIRST HUMAN WHOSE NAME WE KNOW.

-- cool facts from xkcd


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook