philh 0 #151 February 28, 2007 If the huge amounts of rain really did fall as flood proponents say it did the salinity of the water would have declined massively. marine organisms cannot live in fresh water, these would have died. in order to postulate the sort of adaptation you are implying a rate of evolutionary change far faster than even standard evolutionary dynamics would allow. this is one of the whole problems with a literal interpretation of a flood. There are roughly 350,000 species of beetle alone, now either Noah took 700,000 beetles with him on to the ark or they evolved in the few thousand years since the flood!There are 980 species of bats , again did Noah take 2000 bats with him or is the rate of bat evolution one new species every couple of years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortyj 0 #152 February 28, 2007 I don't think thats true because whales are still whales dolphins are dolphins apes are apes and humans are humans when they mate thats what you get. you don't get a half whale half dolphin or half human half ape.Playtime is essential. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortyj 0 #153 February 28, 2007 They and every [wild] beast according to its kind, all the livestock according to their kinds, every moving thing that creeps on the land according to its kind, and every fowl according to its kind, every winged thing of every sort. Genesis 7:14 This says kind not species. Where is steve?Playtime is essential. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #154 February 28, 2007 QuoteWhere is steve? You guys probably don't want me involved in this. I think the Biblical writer writes to his generation using his words and idioms. I don't think the Bible is meant to be a science book. I believe the biblical flood probably effected many cultures, but I don't think all the mountains were covered. I would put it in the mesopotania area ... world wide ... ?? The communities of Noah saw it as a judgment from God. I have no argument with that. However, I'm not ready to defend a young earth theory with a literal interpretation of Genesis. That doesn't make me any less of a Christian .. well, maybe in some books, but not in mine See, I told you might not want me involved. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #155 February 28, 2007 I really can't understand how you would take something like the story of Noah's flood as a literal account of what happened. There just isn't any evidence of a world wide flood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortyj 0 #156 February 28, 2007 lets move on to something else then. What about when God parted the sea that dosen't just happen.Playtime is essential. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #157 February 28, 2007 >because whales are still whales dolphins are dolphins . . . And alligators are alligators and crocodiles are crocodiles. But you claim that they are so close that a species could "micro-evolve" into both, which is true. The problem is if you accept that, you have to accept that dolphins can "micro-evolve" into whales; the biggest difference between a tursiops (bottlenose dolphin) and an orca (killer whale) is size. Microevolution, as you call it. Problem is that there's no end to that. Look at a dolphin vs a manatee. Not too much difference there. The manatee has a different shaped snout, and different flippers, but basically the same structure, complete with a vestigial pelvis from when they both used to have legs. Many manatees still have nails on their flippers from back when they were land animals. Continue this and you get an unbroken line of "microevolution" going back millions of years. If you believe that a chihuahua can evolve from a wolf in 4000 years, it's hard to dispute that you could get a thousand times more change in 4 million. >apes are apes and humans are humans when they mate thats what you >get. you don't get a half whale half dolphin or half human half ape. ?? When you mate a horse and a donkey you get a half-horse half-donkey. When you mate a wolf and a coyote you get a half-wolf half-coyote. Some species can still interbreed to a small degree. If they can interbreed better than that, of course, they are not considered separate species. Species with more genetic differences cannot interbreed, because the process of genetic recombination does not produce a viable genome when the sets of chromosomes are too different in structure. A chimpanzee, for example, has 24 pairs of chromosomes. We fused chromosomes 2 and 3 somwhere in our evolution, so we now have 23 chromosomes. That's enough to make interbreeding impossible. If one of our ancestors did the same sort of fusion it's likely we'd be able to interbreed with that ancestor. (Probably best that that can't happen; half the fundamentalists out there would drop dead on the spot if they ever heard of such a thing happening!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #158 February 28, 2007 Quoteex. micro evolution salt water crocks and alligators. For all evolutionist out there if we came from apes why don't you still see apes becoming people? A new observation of a species of apes shows these apes now are making spears - which is a new level of tool making never seen before. They'd make cups for water, use sticks to grub for bugs to eat, but this is a whole new more advanced level of tool making - finding a good straight branch, peeling the bark, sharpening the end - and then using it to spear small animals in trees for food. I'll look for a news article, I heard it on the radio so not link yet. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #159 February 28, 2007 its clear you dnt understand evolution at all.evolution doesnt say that animals mate and they give birth to a new species. Thats a straw man argument.What evolution does say is that animals are made from geneic code, that code mutates when it is copied;most mutations are neutral and have no effect on the organism, many are harmful but some are beneficial . Those that are beneficial will be sleceted for and spread through the gene pool. over time this will lead to gradual chages which will add up to major changes as we move though time. to tak eyou up on the example of whales becuase i did a short a stintd at marine mammal labs in Hawaii and worked on a Catecaen project. I can tell you exactly the tranistional fossils found between modern whales and there ancient ancestors: Pakacetus circa 52million years ago- was a wolf life creature that had an inner ear adapted for directional hearing under water Ambulocetus circa 49million year ago; a cetacean with fingers and hooves but with a rear feet adapted for swimming Rhodocetus circa 47 million years ago has a simliar anatomy to Ambolocetus except the ear region is further enahnced for underwater, the legs are not attached to the pelvis and the neck is shorter all of these are adaptations to improve the animals performance in the water. Basilosaurus cicra 40 million years ago was very much like a whale but it still had left overs from its non whale ancestors, in particualr hind legs that it could not walk on. How do you explain that? You say humans are stlll humans and apes are apes, let me aks you a question, which of these then are apes and which not? Proconsul, Rangwapithecus, Dendropithecus, Limnopithecus, Nacholapithecus, Equatorius, Nyanzapithecus, Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus, Austrolipthicus, h hablis, h rudolfensis, h georgicus, h floresiensis, h erectus, h ergaster, h cerpranensis, h antecessor, h heidlbergensis, h neanderthalensis, h rhodesiensis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #160 February 28, 2007 I think walruses (Walri?) are funny looking.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #161 February 28, 2007 What about that story? Should we believe everything in the Bible as literal truth? Are all ancient stories true accounts of what happened or just those that are in the Bible? Did the parting of the Red sea really happen? I don't think so. Could something have happened that they interpreted as God parting the Red sea? Possible I don't know. It's just a story. Why do you through out these stories as fact? Do you have any evidence other then the Bible to back these stories up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #162 February 28, 2007 QuoteI think walruses (Walri?) are funny looking. But damn tasty, and, if you make a poultice from their neck wattle and slap it on your forehead, it's helps with headaches, attracts flies, and smell cool. Strangely enough, the poultice makes a fine cleaner for claw hammers ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #163 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think walruses (Walri?) are funny looking. But damn tasty, and, if you make a poultice from their neck wattle and slap it on your forehead, it's helps with headaches, attracts flies, and smell cool. Strangely enough, the poultice makes a fine cleaner for claw hammers You do know that both of those uses of Walrus are very offensive to Manx Cats, don't you?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortyj 0 #164 February 28, 2007 again why would people lie about that and record it O.K. you know what this thread was do you believe in God and my answer is Yes. He has always provided for me and been there when I needed Him. He has proven Himself time and time againPlaytime is essential. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #165 February 28, 2007 and what about the people he hasnt provided for the hundreds of thousands of people that dies in the Asian tsunami, the milions that died in the holcaust etc etc, based on your argument they shoudnt have believed in him right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #166 February 28, 2007 I wouldn't say they lied. They wrote down what it looked like from their perspective. How would you call that a lie?? Was Homer's Illiad fact or fiction? Or was it a mix of both? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #167 February 28, 2007 QuoteWas Homer's Illiad fact or fiction? Or was it a mix of both? Neither. It was a lie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #168 February 28, 2007 You seem to think that the bible was written as things happened. It's unlikely that these stories you refer to were written about as they happened. Most likely they were passed on from generation to generation as stories. Then someone wrote them down. Did the get changed as they were told? Probably. Then the Jewish Rabbis or whomever put the Bible together chose those stories and added them to the bible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortyj 0 #169 February 28, 2007 not sure I understand your questionPlaytime is essential. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #170 February 28, 2007 exactly how was God there for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #171 February 28, 2007 you say that you believe in god becuase he has been there for you. I presume then he has answered your prayers or you are happy with your life or somehting along those lines. But countless people throughout history have suffered the most terrible horrors , if you think people should believe in god based upon whether they feel god has been there for them then by implication those that suffered such horrors as Rwanda genocie, the Nazi holcaust, etc should not have belived in god , dont u agree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #172 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteWas Homer's Illiad fact or fiction? Or was it a mix of both? Neither. It was a lie. very funny Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #173 February 28, 2007 Quoteexactly how was God there for you? I'm on your side of this debate (to the extent it's a debate), but at the risk of giving support to the other side, I think she means that - to her - God was there for her much the way Steveorino described in post #54 that - to him - God has been there for him. Steve cogently explains that he needn't prove it to others; it's manifest to him, and that's good enough for him, even if it fails to persuade others. Steve also recognizes the difference between books of science and books of parables of faith written for an audience of the author's time. I don't have a problem with someone saying "I felt God in my heart", even if that fails to persuade me that it's literally so. I do have a problem with people insisting that ancient scriptures are literally and unquestionably true as though the scriptural story were the same as a videotaped record of the "event". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #174 February 28, 2007 Yeah I am just curious to see what her response is. She definitely has a different view then Steve does and it would be interesting to see what she has to say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #175 February 28, 2007 Quote lets move on to something else then. What about when God parted the sea that dosen't just happen. Why do men have nipples? Why do you have an appendix and a coccyx? Why are our spines and the veins in our legs not well adapted to standing upright?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
