Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
An interesting thing to note is that the rate of extinction today appears to be higher then the rates of extinction in even the most severe of the historical mass-extinctions. And in this case we know the cause - human kind.
Yes it is. They've noted the decline in many of the larger Pleistocene based mammals, correlated directly with the spread and diversification of human populations. It was a great loss - I really wouldv'e liked to have seen a real Thylacine. Almost looks like a transitional animal between a marsupial and mammal (like a canine).

-----

Mike.
 
Green_Manelishi:
Why yes I do suppose the beetle "kind" eventually adapted to be many of what we see today. After all, they are resilient little bug(ger)s that adapt very well. It's just as valid a theory as "up from the mud they arose".

That's some darn fast evolution. And you're right, it is as good a thoery as "up from the mud they arose." Good thing that's not the theory of evolution and you are just perpetuating more lies again.

I thought lies were to be avoided in Christianity? You are awfully good at it.

Of course, these are just theories; I was not around. Neither were you.

No, you have unsubstantiated hypotheses, not theories.
 
Midnight Star:
I can see how evolution can conclude alot of things ... but I don't believe it can fully explain everything.

Some traits have no impact on survival. It's that simple. Just because a trait evolved does not mean it serves a purpose. Some stuff just happens due to mutation or as a side effect of some other form of natural selection. Not everything is a survival mechanism.
 
Green_Manelishi:
I am glad to know you wrote a really nice report about otters.

Me too. As I mentioned before, otters are very neat. Pretty intelligent, too. Lousy pets though, as I learned by reading a great book, "Ring of Endless Water."

It's so sad that you believe many of us to be intellectual idiots with no grasp of science or logic.

Yes, it is sad that there are so many people that have no grasp of science or logic.

It might help you to know that about the time you were writing about otters I was converting PDP11/RSTS based code to JCL and COBOL. So, apparently I am not a complete idiot.

Well, apparently you can write COBOL, but lack the basic reasoning ability to understand simple scientific theories. I can write code, too and I can play the trumpet, but I'm a lousy football player. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. It's ok, but one should be honest to themselves about what their weaknesses are.


Super continents? Affirmative.
Fossils on mountains? Affirmative.
Geology? Affirmative. I am aware of how mountains are believed to be formed as well as volcanic activity.

"believed to be formed"

Mount Everest grows by a few inches every year. Do we just "believe" that it is a result of plate tectonics or is it an actual fact?

Hawaii is also gains land mass every year. Do we just "believe" that it is due to volcanic action?

Nothing we see disproves Biblical accounts.

More lies...
 
In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture of a few amino acids, some of the building blocks of life, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — a few amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment was meant to simulate a primeval earth. It included an external energy source and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. (the specific experiment involved shooting a spark, representing lightning, into their flask) There was careful filtering in place to preserve the results from destruction.
Here's something interesting that I just thought of while reading that excerpt from Wikipedia...

For starters, we have a primoridal "soup", devoid of atmospheric oxygen, containing just a few basic elemental gases, which includes water vapor (containing oxygen) - without water vapor we couldn't get an electrical reaction or discharge. At first I thought, we dont get lightning on other planets, until I thought of Jupiter. So, it seems possible as long as water vapor is present. I wonder if any form of life has arisen there? Just a curious thought, and something to examine if we ever get that far out in space, because theorectially there should be some form of life.

With the introduction of electricty, on the magnitude of simulated lightning we get some basic amino acids. Possibly the same kind each instance (same conditions, elements, etc.,. same result) - only one or two types were formed. This isn't nearly enough to bring about the potential beginnings of a major explosion of life. It seems to show how elements react under a given condition, like Na and Cl can form salt, but doesn't quite represent enough to conclude itself as a "beginning of life".

We need to diversify the "soup" or conditions over time to get others (amino acids), in order to form a more complex chain. Since each amino acid should, theoretically, have a given span of time to remain active (otherwise dino dna would still be good to this day), It might not survive a transition of time (or environment wise) into the new condition that produces the third or fourth kind - now we have the next couple, we've just lost the first two. Also, we have to assume that just by chance, not only did all the "elements" come together to form a "beginning", but that all types were being formed in the proper (exact) order to combine effectively into a primordial genesis cell, that would not only have the ability to replicate in an ever changing hostile environment, but to take advantage of every change, evolving and adding to a single entity that all of a sudden, split out all over the place. Statistically, that would be way off the chart. Still reading though ... I saw Haldane's name mentioned :)

Gotta to head out again. :( Be back in a bit ...

-----

Mike.
 
Some traits have no impact on survival. It's that simple. Just because a trait evolved does not mean it serves a purpose. Some stuff just happens due to mutation or as a side effect of some other form of natural selection. Not everything is a survival mechanism.
I agree completely. But how do we decide which is which? By whichever side of the fence (or camp) we're on (or in) at the moment? By which point (not necessarily related to) that we're trying to prove at any given time? By observation? How do we unbias that, in order to come round about to a more universal conclusion?

-----

Mike.
 
Midnight Star:
I agree completely. But how do we decide which is which? By whichever side of the fence (or camp) we're on (or in) at the moment? By which point (not necessarily related to) that we're trying to prove at any given time? By observation? How do we unbias that, in order to come round about to a more universal conclusion?

I'm missing your point.
 
MikeFerrara:

i couldn't open 2, 3, and 5 due to bad links

the two i read are clear and point out that we are real close to chimps and descended from them, and then go into specific analysis as to the mechanisms thereof (specifically, gene regulation and protein differentials).

again, they're arguing details, not the overall theory of evolution nor the fact that we are 98.5 similar to chimps in DNA
 
Midnight Star:
-

It's true that some have studied a particular field more than another, but studiousness doesn't equate to infallibility (he's pretty good at picking up the meaning of a word), beyond that would be conceit and condenscention. Often times, some of the most "revolutionary" leaps, are made by the simplest of people, and from fields not necessarily their own, because they aren't "narrowed" down by prejudice. Anyone at anytime has the right to discuss anything they wish, since we can only govern our own mouths (well some of the time), and since our mouth isn't on their face, how can we govern that? If we feel threatened by them simply asking, we've got the problem, not them. I think we've come far enough on the earth for that at least. Just to think their too simple, is not to think at all ... and we're definately not to the point of thinking others are below us, are we?
Mike.

Amen. If I had a hundred dollar bill for every PhD Marine Biologist I've known who couldn't grow a shrimp to save his life, I could buy a.....Halcyon B/P and wing and a new reg. :D
 
Hank49:
Amen. If I had a hundred dollar bill for every PhD Marine Biologist I've known who couldn't grow a shrimp to save his life, I could buy a.....Halcyon B/P and wing and a new reg. :D


Darwin couldn't grow a shrimp

nor could Newton ... i bet neither can Hawkins

Einstein ... hmmm... no, no shrimp growing in his resume either...

just not one of those "hot resume items" for genius, is it?

:D

and note what they all have in common! the finest education available in their time

now, please name the last non-educated, out-of-field person who contributed to science in a signifcant way

(the guys who volunteered to be injected with radioactive waste don't count)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom