|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing the evidence that support creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
He had a lot that I don't remember. He might have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Hi Aquilegia,
Welcome to EvC, I hope you take the time to learn a little something here. I will tackle your point number 3:
Aquilegia writes: Snakes and humans. If evolution were correct, then reptiles would be genetically closer to other reptiles than, say, birds. However, when tested, snakes turned out to be closer to humans than any other. So did snakes evolve from some mammal? Or was everything created at the same time with roughly the same code. This is just simply false. In all genetic taxonomies I have seen snakes fall out with other diapsids and group with lizards as Lepidosauromorpha within the diapsid clade. What I suspect you are referring to is the old 1965 molecular sequence of the cytochrome-c protein that showed that humans and rattlesnakes had very similar aa sequences in this protein. First of all the similarity is not as great as once believed (although still remarkably similar). A 1991 study (Ambler & Daniel, 1991) found a great deal of error in the 1965 work, and they discuss the pitfalls of non-genetic molecular phylogenies. Basically, because of the highly conserved nature and redundancy of some proteins, they do not make good phylogenetic trees because they tend to re-evolve multiple times, exist in several forms in a single species, etc. Think about hemoglobin, it is found in tetrapods but also in some clams, worms, etc. No one would think a valid tree could be drawn using just one protein such as hemoglobin. The authors also discuss the high rate of convergence in cytochrome sequences in widely different taxa again reinforcing how it cannot be used alone for phylogenies. Ambler RP and Daniel M (1991) Rattlesnake cytochrome c. A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence. Biochemical Journal 274(3):825-831 "I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Aquilegia writes:
Would you like to be specific? I'm a physicist, so I'm sure I'll be able to follow your technical explanation. I never said that 'It must be God,'. I think, however, that because galaxies are intact, the universe must be younger than 10,000 years. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
1) Asexual/Bisexual reproduction. Evolution claims that our ancestors were all once-celled creatures. These reproduced by asexual reproduction. So, somewhere, it had to switch from asexual to bisexual. Two things are possible: a) this did happen within one generation (highly unlikely, due to the usual slow evolution usually taught), or b) both sides of the bisexual reproducing organisms were created at the same time. I was engaged in a correspodence with a local creation science activist. He asked a similar question, one of many "unanswerable questions" which I did answer, but he worded it horribly:
quote:Much of my response, transcript at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_meiosis.html, was trying to make sense of his cryptic question which he just repeated despite my requests for clarification. So, assuming that he actually meant asexual to sexual, I offered him this: quote:His response was typical, to change the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I never said that 'It must be God,'. I think, however, that because galaxies are intact, the universe must be younger than 10,000 years. Or not. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) - note that no single creationist has gotten to first base. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Well? Are you going to point this error out to him? Walter Brown has that book on-line at The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. At the very bottom of the page there's a link for sending feedback. Go for it.
A possible lead you could use would be that you tried to use his claim and it got shot down in flames. Well, that's the truth, isn't it? Let us know what happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 6009 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
quote:False Dichotomy as already pointed out. In between asexual and sexual is somthing capable of both. quote:This is one of the very interesting and fascinating active areas of astrophyics right now. But the theory of a universe younger than 10000 years offers many, many, many more problems than a class of matter we have yet to characterize. quote:Will you believe anything from anyone if it supports your cause? Maybe next you will ask us to refute your friend who personally speaks to god by lighting his chest hair on fire. (Argument 2 really is this ridiculous.) quote:Are you saying that all life on earth being similar in some way is an argument against evolution and for creation??? I'm confused. This argument seems to go the other way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds) along with the lack of neccesary mass to counter the effect with an equally strong gravitational pull towards the center means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years. Because they are still intact and still spinning, either the galaxies must have more mass, and therefore more gravity (the theoretical 'Dark Matter'), or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 6009 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
Again, false dichotomy, but let's assume for a minute that there are two theories: Dark matter vs. Young Galaxies. In an intellectually honest way, please describe what you feel are potential problems with both theories. Do you really feel that a young galaxies theory solves more problems than it creates? Please think about it earnestly before you reply. Familiarize yourself with why astrophysicists think that galaxies are billions of years old and make sure your young galaxy theory can account for any discrepancies.
Edited by aviator79, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
I've already accepted that both 1 and 3 are bunked. And I will accept evidence against creation and for evolution. I'm interested to see what people have to say.
However, I am saying that it's foolish to say that life could only exist on earth. Carbon-based life can only exist on earth, but not all life has to be carbon-based. Unless, however, life needed an Intelligant Designer to be made, and not a random sequence of events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years. Assuming this is true for the sake of argument ...
or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay. ... is NOT a logical conclusion: the visible galaxies could be less than 10,000 years old, but the age of the universe could still be totally unaffected. This also leaves open the way galaxies are formed, replacing those that have long since expired due to lack of appreciating the gravity of the situation. AND, IF this galaxy decay were true THEN we should be able to measure the expansion of the galaxies over time, this leads to the proposition that IF the galaxies are expanding then this is likely to be true, BUT IF the galaxies are NOT expanding then this concept is falsified. Care to place any bets? Do you think this was neglected in the calculations of galaxy rotation that resulted in the concept of dark stuffs? Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 6009 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
quote:I agree. Statistically, it is quite possilbe for life to exist elsewhere in the universe. But you've failed to explain why this requires an Intelligent Designer. If you are going down the ID road, be ready for the problem of inifinite regression. i.e. who designed the designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Unless, however, life needed an Intelligant Designer to be made, and not a random sequence of events. So why is an omnipotent etc Intelligent Designer be restricted to only making life on one planet? Why shouldn't Mars have vibrant life similar to ours in complexity but based on some slight difference in basic structure (not carbon based)? Doesn't the absence speak to inability? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds) "Insanely fast" as in 200,000,000 years per rotation? That's roughly what our galaxy does. It would be pretty tricky to get a collection of 400,000,000,000 stars that's 100,000 light-years across to be "torn apart" in just 10,000 years, even if things were moving at the speed of light. And our Solar System is orbiting at less than a thousandth of that speed. Someone is telling you lies. It isn't me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Carbon-based life can only exist on earth... Why should that be? Carbon is pretty common in this universe. Amino acids and other "molecules of life" have been detected in interstellar clouds a long way from here....a very long way. Planets are apparently very abundant out in space.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024