Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ready When Made
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 73 (61140)
10-16-2003 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-15-2003 9:43 PM


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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-15-2003 9:43 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:09 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 73 (61169)
10-16-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
10-16-2003 3:51 AM


'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 3:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:21 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 35 by Loudmouth, posted 10-16-2003 7:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 73 (61179)
10-16-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 11:09 AM


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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:09 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 73 (61181)
10-16-2003 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:21 AM


'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:29 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 73 (61183)
10-16-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 11:25 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:25 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:35 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 21 of 73 (61186)
10-16-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:38 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2003 1:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 73 (61187)
10-16-2003 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 11:35 AM


I can only conclude that you did not understand my previous post.
I have already explained that your argument misrepresents evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:35 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:46 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 73 (61189)
10-16-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:38 AM


Gotcha
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:38 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 73 (61190)
10-16-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:29 AM


'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??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 1:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 25 of 73 (61206)
10-16-2003 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 11:52 AM


quote:
What if they require change rapidly. millions of years??
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 10-16-2003 1:55 PM Rei has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 73 (61210)
10-16-2003 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 11:52 AM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 27 of 73 (61211)
10-16-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 11:35 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 11:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 73 (61213)
10-16-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rei
10-16-2003 1:32 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 1:32 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 2:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 73 (61217)
10-16-2003 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brad McFall
10-16-2003 1:55 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 10-16-2003 1:55 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 10-16-2003 2:34 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 33 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 3:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 34 by JustinC, posted 10-16-2003 3:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 73 (61220)
10-16-2003 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
10-16-2003 2:25 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 2:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 2:41 PM Brian has replied
 Message 37 by Trump won, posted 10-16-2003 10:26 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024