|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fish on the Ark? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
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: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNaturalist Member (Idle past 5712 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see Evolution Theory Explains Diversity - same thread, new name, new forum ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Libmr2bs Member (Idle past 5755 days) Posts: 45 Joined: |
If you can believe one miracle, you may as well believe a million.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024