|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's stupid. You can do all that
Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived without reference to anything macroevolutionary at all. ok, lets talk specifics, then, shall we? suppose we have a group of animals that is extinct. all of their immediate relatives anywhere near what a creationist would call a "kind" are dead. every last one of them. say, for instance, the dinosaurs. now, you might call "tyrannosaurs" a kind. you might call "theropods" a kind. you might even call all "dinosauria" a kind. but i hesitate to think that you would call all archosaurs a kind. unless you've grouped crocodiles and birds together in one kind, which i would find incredibly hard to believe. if you have done so, i apologize -- but i also fail to see the difference between this and the theory of evolution. do you agree that birds and crocodiles are separate kinds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
we would need hypermacorevolution at rates that are really inconceivable. sounds like an argument from incredulity if i ever heard one! lol. (see the other thread)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It is POSSIBLE ALL REPTILES are a Kind. Or it is POSSIBLE there are a number of reptile Kinds. It is CERTAIN that crocodiles descended from either the one reptile kind or one of the reptile kinds. if all reptiles are one kind, i fail to see why you object to evolution. also, are birds reptiles?
Birds have nothing to do with reptiles. on the contrary, birds and crocodiles (crocodiles more than other reptiles, btw) have a ton of homologous features. dinosaurs are even more STRONGLY homologous to birds.
That's an artificial notion based on nothing but one reptilian feathered fossil faith, you should know better. first of all, we have 7 specimens on that "one" fossil. and second, feathered dinosaurs are making the news all the time these days. we have more than a dozen species of feathered dinosaurs, most with quite a few specimens. we also have tons of primitve birds -- the line between the two is a subtle one. it comes down to stuff like proportion of the maxillary and premaxila bones in the skull. we're talking MINUTE details that make the difference.
and the fact that there are no birds in the layer inhabited by the big reptiles. also false. have a look at the recent thread on gansus, for instance. gansus lived before t. rex. there's nearly modern birds by the k/t event, and lots of mostly modern (but not ancestral) "opposite birds."
But I do believe that it is possible that a reptile Kind contained the genetic potential of wings and flight. It may not really be possible, I don't know, but that's how rich I think the original genetic potential of each Kind was. i fail to see your objection to evolution, if a crocodile can turn into a bird. that's a rather loose definition of "kind."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I have the benefit of divine revelation. god told me you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
you are a p.r.a.t.t.-machine today, faith!
1) The original taxonomic tree was based on observed design characteristics of the various animals. earlier you said that "looks-like" evolution (based on observed "design" characteristics and similarity) was not enough. do you take this back?
2) The idea of descent was supposed later and changed its name to the evolutionary tree. ok, so we're just gonna remove common descent, but still draw a graph of how things are superficially related?
3) Genetics is also a design factor. Why shouldn't there be similarities to the design characteristics of the animals on the taxonomic tree quite apart from any notion of descent? let's ignore that for a second. we'll come back around to it. are you aware that the tree we can draw from genetics is practically identical to the tree we can draw from observation? this much should be obvious: genetics dictates characteristics. agreed? can we now distill this down to a simple point, for the yec-pov? that genetics does not dictate descent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
YECism has nothing to do with geophysical oil exploration yet totally views the entire geologic column differently. and that doesn't relate to oil exploration at all does it?
What is there about Evolutionism or creationism that makes a marketable drug that bit where viruses and bacteria evolve new resistant strains -- whole separate species that cannot be fought by older drugs.
or a floatable ship? "noah's ark."
Christians and Secularists alike use the same technology applicable to the industry. "christians" and "young earth creationists" are not one and the same. yec's are a subgroup of christians. i used to know a christian geologist. guess which camp he was in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I don't know. It's the definition I've had in mind all along here. What makes it Kinds rather than evolution is that it has to do with BUILT-IN genetics with built-in limits for each Kind. so it's an issue of potential. (btw: you're still wrong. i think you'll find that birds are "birds of the air" and crocodiles are "beasts of the field." not only separate kinds, but created on different days.)
The enormous varieties of dogs alone ought to be an example of how much potential there is in one Kind, though, and that's a modern Kind -- The varieties of dogs before the Flood must have been astonishing. all dogs are one species, canis familiaris. interesting trivia, i know. but it's why you can cross breed just about any two dog varieties within the realm of, ahem, physical possibility.
If there are birds in the dinosaur layers, fine, I heard there weren't any and that that was one reason for the idea they evolved from the reptiles. nope. we know that birds evolved from reptiles because their homology to theropod dinosaurs, their genetic links to crocodiles, their remaining crocodilian homologies (especially the scale), and because we have a very large selection and range between more reptilian, dinosaurian forms, and modern birds. there's actually enough evidence to classify birds as a subgroup of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs as a subgroup of sauropsida, or "reptiles." oddly, in scientific circles, the evidence is SO good that birds are sauropsids that most people feel the term "reptile" is outdated. it appears the fork happened in about the late jurassic, maybe a little before. both dinosaurs and birds continued past them co-existing during the entire cretaceous period, until the dinosaurs were killed off in the k/t event. it's really quite fascinating. i can recommend a good book or two on the subject for you.
Feathered dinosaurs, fine. I haven't been keeping up. To my mind they can have all the feathers they want and even wings and still not necessarily be related to birds. did you catch the distinction i made above? the difference between what we call "bird" and what we call "dinosaur" is made on stuff like the proportion of the maxillary and premaxila bones. we're talking stuff that *I* barely know the details of. and i suspect if i showed you with a diagram, you'd say "so what?" in other words, we have dinosaurs on one side of the line, and birds on the other. and the difference between the two is "micro" evolution.
maybe only 5% of the genome reflects the difference but it's a definitive difference nevertheless. far, far, less. we share something like 50% of our dna with plants.
But yes, if the Kinds were originally as genetically rich as I think they were, then descent of some pretty widely diverging types is possible from one original. again, how is this different than common descent?
I believe it very likely that ALL the cats that ever lived descended from one original cat Kind for instance. if i were to use the example above as an analogy for the other example i was using, your "original cat kind" would include cats, hyenas, mongooses (mongeese?), seals, racoons, bears, walruses and dogs. that's the degree of a shift we're talking about with crocodiles and birds. the group that encompasses them is one of the very basal groups in sauropsida.
I wonder what Adam and Eve looked like. Every single human type came from them. Every skin color, every hair type, every size and shape from the pygmy to the Neanderthal to the giants of the Bible. Actually all that came from NOAH and his family. Wonder what HE looked like. well, i can tell you that one of noah's sons was semitic, and another black.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I already answered what you are asking. ok, so you agree that genetics cannot prove descent, and this is a fundamental position of the yec-viewpoint? ie: that if we have a tree or genetic similarities, we cannot show that one organism gave rise to another?
First address what I said. don't fight this too hard. i'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. i just want to make sure i understand the claim right, and the implication of that claim, before i run off and say something that will be a strawman, for lack of any better information.
And I have no idea what p.r.a.t.t. means points refuted a thousand times. you're just full of old creationist gems today.
And I'd appreciate it if you think I'm contradicting myself to think again. Because so far you've been wrong every time and it's tedious having to correct you. Thanks. quote: did i misunderstand your answer? the question i asked was: can we reconstruct extinct speciments, and study their anatomy and physiology, and reconstruct how they would have lived, without the use of "macro" evolutionary relationships (in situations where there are no "micro" relationships available alive today)? you said "no." i took that to mean "no." was i wrong in assuming that "no" meant "no" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Except that 50% of this thread has been hijacked to off topic purposes, I was making some headway showing that this is false, that the vast majority of practical science does not in any way challenge a YEC's beliefs. well, um, we're having some problems with just WHAT the yec beliefs are. apparently, they're looking more and more like evolution by the post. it appears that in your attempt to rectify yec with practical science (and the evolution it requires) you are slowly removing any meaning whatsoever for the term "young earth creationism" as it applies to evolution. though, admittedly, not age of the earth. of course evolution is not a challenge to yec beliefs if you believe in common ancestry, as you apparently do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Remember that both Arach and I are still Christians, with as great a faith in GOD and the Bible as you. The issue that divides us is not Christianity or belief in a common GOD or even the idea that this Universe is the creation of that GOD. or, apparently even how god created things. faith appears to believe that god's creation is adaptable, along lines most everyone else would call "macro" evolution. and evidently, common design seems to be leading us further and further back, to common ancestry.
If you are approaching a crisis of Faith, if the volume of specific evidence that excludes YECism or the Flood, remember that the choice is not Christianity or Old Earth and Evolution. You do NOT have to abandon your faith, only those misconceptions that are holding you back. yes, jar has brought this up in chat. it's starting to look like your faith may be jeopardy. please, please realize that there are other ways of approaching the bible, and not all of them involve forsaking christ. we are not trying to attack your faith in god, or your love of christ; only the miseducation. if you need help with questions of faith, and i think i can speak for jar here, we'd both be more than willing to help, as a reassuring and christian shoulder. crises of faith are hard, and we're both quite familiar with them. i'm not too sure about jar, but i am a former fundamentalist myself, though not as involved as some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
lemme play devil's advocate for a second. or rather, god's advocate.
If Genesis I was "dictated by God Himself" then why did God dictate such naive nonsense? Was God so ignorant that He did not know better? while a testament to the wonders of the universe given to ignorant and earth-bound ancient hebrews would be truly inspiring, why would god do such a thing, besides to prove himself? sure, he could have given us the encyclopedia galactica had he wanted -- but would the people he was giving it to understand it? would we understand it today? abe: it also rather relies on the notion that bible is a science textbook, when clearly there are other more important things being said, and the cosmological context is background. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
exactly. we tell our kids similar stories.
but you don't see anyone arguing for "santa claus physics" or "the stork theory of birth."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Nobody claims the Bible is science. BUT IT IS TRUTH! quote: God's word speaks to all people in all times and places. That's its genius. There is nothing limited about God's word. yes, i agree. it's a very beautiful and profound, and important text. but does it need to be a science textbook to be of value, and contain truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Well, if you want to put yourself in the place of Pilate and question the truth of God I'm afraid that's very appropriate in this context. i find in Him no fault at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The multilayered geological column is EXACTLY what would be expected from a worldwide flood, not some "single flood layer." actually, we'd expect a world-wide floodplain, composing one stratum. it would be like the k/t boundary, in that it covers the entire world, only it would have the characteristics of a floodplain. but, you know, that's only the educated geology expectation -- creationists are more than happy to postulate the effects of the flood doing all kinds of strange and wonderful things, and having whatever effects they wish to ascribe to it. you can't just pretend that the flood predicts something you are using it to explain. especially not when this prediction is absolutely contrary any established geology -- it involves throwing out everything we know about geological records of floods. (which, in turns, continues to screw paleontology...)
There was such a bottleneck. genetically? no. the evidence does not say so. Edited by arachnophilia, : better wording
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024