|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ready When Made | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Well creation per se does not predict a deteriorating world.
The paleontological record indicates that the number of species has varied upwards and downwards, sometimes catastrophically crashing (mass extinctions). Some argue that we are due for another such event. Even without the paleontological record it is to be expected form evolution that extinctions will happen and many modern extinctions have quite clear causes - not a deteriorating world, but human action. To sum it up the "deteriorating world" explanation of extinction is quite clearly false." That's the second piece of "evidence for creation you've produced where the real evidence contradicts your claims. So my question is, if there is real evidence for creationism why are creationists relying on arguments which are so obviously wrong ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
'To sum it up the "deteriorating world" explanation of extinction is quite clearly false.'
Why ? Because you say so? 'Even without the paleontological record it is to be expected form evolution that extinctions will happen' However, my argument is evolution would not have time to happen, because .......time is the enemy(extinction). That is message 1. Nothing said so far has disproven it. 'That's the second piece of "evidence for creation you've produced where the real evidence contradicts your claims.' Not really, unless you can get rid of the fossils, and extinction.All I have mentioned is these simple facts, I'm hardly going against evidence, however I KNOW I am going against the evolutionists view on this. These are simple observations about FACTS - FOSSILS - EXTINCTION. I am suggesting that time is the enemy, based on the geologist's argument - John Mackay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
As I explained the "deteriorating world" idea is contradicted by the evidence. It's not just "because I say so" at all.
And just what is it that our hominid ancestors *needed* millions of years ago that they didn't have ? You say that it hasn't been disproven but it's not even a plausible claim - and it is based on just your say so. It certainly isn't a "simple fact".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
'And just what is it that our hominid ancestors *needed* millions of years ago that they didn't have ?'
If they didn't need anything why did they evolve?Remember, I am talking according to the claims of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
So your argument is that evolution requieres continuous strong selective pressure. There's a simple answer to that - it's a strawman. Species either change very slowly over time (with no great selective pressure) or remain more or less the same (stabilising selection)for most of their existence. The latter is probably more common.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
No, my argument is, evolution is not possible because millions of years is too long a time to evolve. Extinction would more likely occur. you say what would our relatives have needed? Does this mean you don't believe we evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I can only conclude that you did not understand my previous post.
I have already explained that your argument misrepresents evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Gotcha
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-16-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
'Species either change very slowly over time (with no great selective pressure) or remain more or less the same '
Seriously though, I do get your drift.What if they require change rapidly, millions of years??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7043 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Once again: Then they go extinct if they cannot adapt quickly enough. You seen not to be catching on: there are between 10 and 100 million species on Earth. A species going extinct is a drop in the bucket. 10 species is nothing. 100 is nothing. 1,000 is nothing. 10,000 is nothing. Do you get the picture? Yes, due to humans, which have been around for a few tens of thousands of years, in particular large animals have been going extinct during these past few tens of thousands of years at a faster rate. This is a "bust" period, as we have described. There are hundred of major boom and bust cycles in global diversity in the evolutionary record. Rapid climate change is another major cause of such effects. But with tens of millions of species, there are *plenty* to move in and fill the void (and consequently, diversify through cladogenesis, as their new niches will be quite different) when an extinction occurs. What part of this do you not understand? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
IF they are subjected to strong selective pressures for millions of years, either they keep up or they die out. I don't know of any cases where we can say that that has happened, and certainly not because the world was deteriorating (arms races are an example where pressure may continue for quite a while but it is because of mutual "improvements" - not because things are getting worse).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Extinction would more likely occur. you say what would our relatives have needed?
Have you seen any Neanderthals lately? Homo habilis? Pithecanthropus?No? That's because they ARE extinct!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Millins of years May* be too long as Mike said in 21- Croizat's method has such a quirky way to relate time in biology that it looks like it is still going to be centuries before the technology catches up to the Q&A
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Thankyou Brad, the simple answer to a simple question.
Millions of years may indeed have been too long. That is my main point. I don't think a human would be the result of an extinction/takeover/degeneration, as they too would have the same problem when 'needs' arose.Millions of years wont solve an urgent problem. Any evolutionary way it is looked at cannot change the fact that we observe extinction but not evolution. Degeneration rather than improvement, can be indicated by this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
HI Mike,
In regard to the deterioration of species, do you think that, say in the last 100 years, humans have deteriorated or improved? Brian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024