Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 1:53 AM
111 online now:
Dredge, dwise1 (2 members, 109 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,178 Year: 13,784/21,208 Month: 3,266/3,605 Week: 52/556 Day: 3/49 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
platypus
Member (Idle past 3168 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 1 of 169 (376314)
01-11-2007 6:59 PM


Account of life: The earth is 4.5 billion years old. At that point in time, several distinct forms were instantaneously created, an amoeba, a fish, a plant, a reptile, an amphibian, an arthropod, and a mammal. These original forms diversified into the innumerable species we see today. But these forms did not evolve from one original organism, so there is no need to justify the origin of life from a biochemical soup. Life was instantaneously created along the forms listed above at the beginning moment of time. Random mutation and speciation has occurred from this beginning moment in time to produce all of the species we see today.

Afternote: This is not my view, and I am not presenting it as such. If I were, I would need to provide evidence for the truth of this account. I have proposed this because of a recent discussion with a friend, and because the creationist crowd seems to be a little slow these days. My question is, although there is no factual evidence in support of this account, is there enough scientific evidence to disprove this account of life?

I suppose it should go in biological evolution?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 1:02 PM platypus has responded
 Message 7 by Matt P, posted 01-12-2007 6:03 PM platypus has responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2007 9:12 AM platypus has not yet responded
 Message 18 by ikabod, posted 03-28-2007 9:38 AM platypus has not yet responded

    
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 169 (376336)
01-11-2007 8:45 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Janeylou, posted 03-25-2007 9:07 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 3 of 169 (376526)
01-12-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
01-11-2007 6:59 PM


My question is, although there is no factual evidence in support of this account, is there enough scientific evidence to disprove this account of life?

Well, as one data point in the argument against such a creation there are these facts of the first appearance of these "kinds":

amoeba "kind" - Achaean period
plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period
arthropod "kind" - Pre-Cambrian period
amphibian "kind" - Devonian period
reptile "kind" - Carboniferous period
mammal "kind" - Triassic period
ignorant creationist "kind" - Cenozoic period

Seems to me that if these "kinds" were created at the beginning then we should see all of them in the Achaean period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 01-11-2007 6:59 PM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 4:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 11 by platypus, posted 01-12-2007 6:57 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 9:27 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 169 (376536)
01-12-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 1:02 PM


amoeba "kind" - Achaean period

amoebazoa - archaean eon.

and technically, there are no known eukaryote fossils from anywhere in the archaean eon, though it's likely this is when they evolved. really, we should list this as the slatherian era, in the paleo-proterozoic era, in the proterozoic eon, when we have the first fossils.

plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period

plantae - ordovician period (paleozoic era)

"fish" are paraphyletic. technically, we're in one of the many "fish" groups. jawed chordates, gnathostomata, first appeared in the silurian period, also paleozoic.

arthropod "kind" - Pre-Cambrian period

"pre-cambrian" is a bad name, as it encompasses anything before the cambrian period, which is the vast majoriy of the earth's history. and in any case, hard parts first evolved in the cambrian "explosion" so you wouldn't see "true" arthropods before then their segmented worm ancestors.

primitive arthropoda - ediacaran period (neo-proterozoic era).

amphibian "kind" - Devonian period

kind of. amphibia does seem to first appear in the devonian, but the first "true" amphibians appear in the mississipian (carboniferous).

reptile "kind" - Carboniferous period

"reptiles" are polyphyletic.

sauropsida - pennsylvanian (carboniferous) period.

mammal "kind" - Triassic period

sort of. the first "true" mammals, triassic, as you say. but mammals actually diverge lower than sauropsids from amniota.

ignorant creationist "kind" - Cenozoic period

homo - neogene period, cenozoic era.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 1:02 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 5:10 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 5 of 169 (376543)
01-12-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
01-12-2007 4:34 PM


So you're saying I got 1 of 7 correct and another 2 of 7 at least close. That's not bad for me. I'll take it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 4:34 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 5:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 169 (376548)
01-12-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 5:10 PM


it was more a quibble of what's a "period" vs "era" vs "eon"

but you got most of them pretty close, and if that's from memory it's very impressive. i had to check them...

...but i'm gonna have to study that for my paleo exam...


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 5:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 6:28 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 7 of 169 (376565)
01-12-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
01-11-2007 6:59 PM


No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Hi Platypus,
One of the arguments against the instantaneous creation of most of these eukaryotic organisms 4.5 billion years ago is that at that time, there was not atmospheric dioxygen (O2). The geological record is fairly clear that dioxygen didn't appear until ~2 billion years ago, based on the presence of detrital pyrite and uranitite, sulfur isotopes, and banded iron formations (among others that I'm forgetting). So those critters would have had a pretty rough time breathing.

Also, the formation of the Moon occurred about 4.4 billion years ago, and it's believed that the surface of the Earth became liquified magma at that time due to the huge impact that formed the moon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 01-11-2007 6:59 PM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by platypus, posted 01-12-2007 6:50 PM Matt P has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 8 of 169 (376577)
01-12-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
01-12-2007 5:18 PM


if that's from memory it's very impressive

uhh...well...Yeah! Right. Don't I wish.

And, obviously, my sources are not as accurate as necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 5:18 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3168 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 9 of 169 (376582)
01-12-2007 6:42 PM


Thanks guys, my geology background is severly lacking. I was thinking of very complicated biological arguments, but the geological evidence is much simpler. Is there anything else that could be offered?
    
platypus
Member (Idle past 3168 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 10 of 169 (376585)
01-12-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Matt P
01-12-2007 6:03 PM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Hi Matt,

I actually do not find this argument particularly convincing. Could it be possible that these organisms survived by other means, at least initially, and then later evolved the means to breathe oxygen? Also, I suppose I could change the original position so that these species were simultaneously created 2 billion years ago, when dioxygen formed. Come to think of it, the simultaneous origination of the original forms does not need to correspond to the creation of the universe. What do you have to say to this?

As a question of curiosity, why was there no dioxygen until 2 bya? Did dioxygen appear with the first plants, or was it caused by some other factor that in turn aided the formation of plants and animals?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Matt P, posted 01-12-2007 6:03 PM Matt P has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Matt P, posted 01-12-2007 10:46 PM platypus has not yet responded

    
platypus
Member (Idle past 3168 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 11 of 169 (376589)
01-12-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 1:02 PM


Hi Paul,

I don't know enough geology to argue about the nature of the evidence, but I'll take your points as true.

amoeba "kind" - Achaean period
plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period
arthropod "kind" - Pre-Cambrian period
amphibian "kind" - Devonian period
reptile "kind" - Carboniferous period
mammal "kind" - Triassic period
ignorant creationist "kind" - Cenozoic period

Being a flexible scientific investigator, I change my position so that each of these "kinds" were inserted at various points in the earth's history, as you have labelled. But I am going to contend that each kind insertion was a separate event, and that no two kinds evolved from one another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 1:02 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2007 10:36 PM platypus has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 169 (376629)
01-12-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by platypus
01-12-2007 6:57 PM


Being a flexible scientific investigator, I change my position so that each of these "kinds" were inserted at various points in the earth's history, as you have labelled. But I am going to contend that each kind insertion was a separate event, and that no two kinds evolved from one another.

this is where taxonomy would help.

"amoeba kind" as i pointed out above, is amaboezoa, in eukaryota. we're eukaryotes. "fish kind" is really paraphyletic. the largest group containing all "fish" is chordata, which also contains all tetrapods. we are chordates. amphibians are a subgroup of tetrapods, and we are a subgroup of tetrapods. reptiles are sauropsid amniotes. we are synapsid amniotes. and it should be obvious that we are mammals.

the problem with "poofing" each of these "kinds" into existance is that they are all on different levels of the heirarchy. many of them contain others that you are contend "poofed" into existance. and you are only representing a very, very minute sampling of taxa. nearly every group that you could even hope to name has a known ancestor -- the fossil record is actually quite smooth.

"poofing" things into existance makes very little sense, and indeed just becomes an extra arbitrary step over a much more simple and elegant solution. your idea, as it stands, already requires a fair degree of acceptance of evolution for one initial "kind" to produce all the variety of species under that taxon. why the added step, when that mechanism is more than adequate at explaining the initial member of the taxon?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by platypus, posted 01-12-2007 6:57 PM platypus has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 13 of 169 (376632)
01-12-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by platypus
01-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Hi again,
The difficulty with breathing something else instead of O2 is that it needs to be an electron acceptor. O2 is one of the best electron receivers out there. Other anaerobic organisms use things like methane, hydrogen sulfide, and some more obscure transition metals. However, among eukaryotes, O2 is the universal electron acceptor.

O2 is not stable and it is continuously replenished by photosynthesis. On planets without life, there is no O2 in the atmosphere. On Earth O2 it is believed that O2 originated as a waste product from photosynthesis. So O2 did indeed originate with the first plant-like organisms (in this case, photosynthetic bacteria).

Still, if we move the creation back to 2 Ga (billion years), we still have to make the O2. So maybe the first bacteria and archaea were created ~4 Ga, and then these other creatures were created 2 Ga. Other than conflicting with the fossil record (and not being the most elegant of theories), it wouldn't be that bad an idea.

Do you know of Louis Agassiz? Agassiz was one of the last geologists/zoologists to resist the Darwin's theory of evolution. His idea for the succession of fossils amounted to the spontaneous creation of each and every species of organism. You proposal is a bit of a mix between Agassiz and Darwin :).

Background info- Rise of O2:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article541.html

Louis Agassiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by platypus, posted 01-12-2007 6:50 PM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 3:44 AM Matt P has not yet responded

    
Janeylou
Junior Member (Idle past 3627 days)
Posts: 1
From: Aurora, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 14 of 169 (391555)
03-25-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNem
01-11-2007 8:45 PM


The lesser taught version of creation
There is a lesser know version of creation that I believe in. It says in Genisis 1 that in the begining God created the heavens and earth then it says that the heavens and earth became dark waters. What is dark waters on a street during a snowy winters day but ice. Scientist say that the ice age was caused by a comet hitting the earth. The bible states that Lucifer was cast like a baseball to the earth. If a supernatural being was to throw another being out of anger it would be like a high speed pitch at the world series. Then it says he remade the heavens and the earth in six supernatural days and rested on the seventh. Couldn't the prehistoric neandrathal and the dinosaurs be just prototypes that were destroyed befor the ice age and remade after the heavens and the earth were rebuilt and the promise to Noah after the second flood was made was to let all creation know we only have one more chance?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNem, posted 01-11-2007 8:45 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2007 9:32 PM Janeylou has not yet responded
 Message 16 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2007 9:43 PM Janeylou has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 15 of 169 (391557)
03-25-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Janeylou
03-25-2007 9:07 PM


Re: The lesser taught version of creation
um. no. ice ages are caused, generally, by a change in the tilt of the axis of the earth. And we have evidence of several ice ages occuring during earth's history. How many chances is god gonna give us? (assuming you're thinking that ice age is the destruction of the earth, i'm not really positive what you're saying though, mind clarifying?)

and in all reality, a high speed pitch at the world series is insignificant. It can top what, 130 mph? that baseball has very little impact in the great scheme of things. try throwing something the size of a city at more than 20,000 mph to get some real effect on the earth (and even that's gonna be small compared to supernovas).

anywho, welcome to EvC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Janeylou, posted 03-25-2007 9:07 PM Janeylou has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017