Jump to content


Photo

Does Oil Really Take Millions Of Years To Form?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#21 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 13 November 2006 - 04:24 AM

*snip*

New oil condition vs. old oil conditions.

Pressure:
New oil has applied to it, 50 atmospheres. Which is over 700 psi.
Supposed old oil is found at pressures from 3,000-30,000 psi. Which is more than enough pressure.

Heat:
New oil is heated twice to 500 degrees F, while under 700 psi.
Old oil is found at 400 degrees F, while found under pressures at 3,000 psi plus.


Now, before we go into such detail, let us wait and see if they can actually make that oil as they claim, and if they can, what kind of oil it is. After all, oil is not just oil.

Though the pressure is very different, the temps are not. So would you still say that the oil found in the ground took millions of years to form? And on what lab testing would you base this on? When you can actually see that it has been done with similar conditions.


I am not a petrochemical expert. However, the mere claim from somebody that they "can produce excellent grade fuel oil from virtually all kinds of garbage" does not, even it it's true, mean that this process, or its result, is identical to natural mineral oil deposits. .... The scale alone is different.


Also, the pressure oil is found at, would match the conditions of a world wide flood.

Flooding the earth to a total of 14 miles of water (to the highest mountain, and the deepest sea).  Would equal 2000 atmospheres (every 33 feet equals 1 atmosphere), or 28-30,000 psi (looks familiar to the pressure we find old oil at).


Uhh, how did the pressure remain, once the water went away? (I'm not going to ask you where the water came from or where it went, that's another thread).

The pressure found in oil deposits comes from the depth of them. Btw, that varies greatly as well. There are petroleum deposits that exist at normal atmospheric pressure.



Now how do you get:
Flood produced: 28-30,000 psi
Old oil is found at: 3-30,000 psi

And the supposed old oil still has high pressure, and high heat after millions of years?


There is both high pressure and high temperature at those depths.

I guess because this supports creation, it's not scientific questions. Even though the facts speak for themselves.


I guess I can't see how it supports creation.

Hans

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 November 2006 - 12:18 PM

I guess you don't read. The plant is already up and running. Link from the OP: http://www.matr.net/article-6837.html

#23 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 13 November 2006 - 04:01 PM

The variance in dating is much greater than you or science wants to admit.

But it does not matter because I believe everything was created with age already added to it. And whether science wants to understand, or disagree, has no bearing. Science, and it's theories, are not the ones who dictate truth. If they were, their theories would no longer be theories.

Unlike unprovable theories, God has no problem admitting that anything that is not provable takes faith. And God requires that you have faith. But, science says that even if something has no evidence, if it can be theorized, you can believe it if you like.

jn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Example is the Oort cloud. No one has seen it. Only that some sort of supposed test proves that what is theorized is probably there. Which even by religious standards is faith or takes faith. Because for something to require not even 1% faith means it has become an absolute. The Oort cloud is a 98% non-absolute. So in order to believe it exists, takes 98% faith.

Many atheist say they require to see God in order to believe in God. Funny that no one has seen the Oort cloud. But yet in the minds of most atheists, it exists. :(

And not everyone believes what they see anyway:

jn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Belief is a choice made by the person who decides to do it. Whether what is seen or heard is true or not. For I can believe a lie as well as believe a truth. Just as you can. But to believe in something that cannot be proven requires faith, which goes beyond a theory.

You can make the excuse that this does not compute. All that this tells me is that anything out side the relative reality of a theory, is not feasible. And therefore does not warrant your time to look into. And you would rather remain confused then to try and understand it.

View Post


It is most definitely your prerogative to have faith, but please do not call it science

Inference from evidence is a basic tool of science, we infer things every day in our daily lives. We cannot actually see the Oort cloud (currently) but there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting its existence.

http://spaceguard.es...at/com-oort.htm

Let me put it another way. You are a juror in a murder trial. You are asked to convict only if it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Did you actually see the alleged crime being committed? Did you actually see the act of murder? Of course you didn't, then by your standards, there is no way to convict someone unless you where actually there witnessing it yourself.

The mechanism in inferring guilt in trails is analious to that of science, we weigh the inferred evidence provided to make a reasonable assessment. This is why the law says "beyond a reasonable doubt." because one can always make an argument that cannot be disproved. e.g. "aliens abducted me and made me do it", that’s why there is always that operative word reasonable .

It’s the same way with science, you want to know why scientists always refer to the theory of gravity and not the law of gravity? Because nothing can be proven, you can confidently say its true with 99.999% certainty, but there is no way you can actually prove it because it is inductive reasoning. Please remember that the meaning of theory in science is vastly different then the definition in regular language.

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Hence, the theory of gravity explains how an apple falls from a tree. Why the planets circle the sun in the way they do. It is inferring a conclusion from observations. This is the exact same way as inferring a guilty verdict, the existence of the Oort cloud (although existence of the Oort cloud is less certain), and the exact same way scientists inferred evolution.

Now, you can believe that god made the earth to appear millions of years older than it is, but that is faith not science. And is analogous to saying that you cannot be convicted of a murder because aliens abducted you and forced you to do it.


But i do whole heartedly agree with you on one thing, science is not the bearer of truth. science is just a way of exlaining why things work in the natural world. truth is in the realm of religion and faith.

If you ask an evolutionary biologist, who is true to his scientific nature, "what is the meaning of life?". the only real valid response he can give is, "i dont know, go ask a priest".

#24 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2006 - 06:36 PM

Inference from evidence is a basic tool of science, we infer things every day in our daily lives. We cannot actually see the Oort cloud (currently) but there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting its existence.


Inference from evidence is only science when a cause-and-effect relationship is established via the scientific method.

Let me put it another way. You are a juror in a murder trial. You are asked to convict only if it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Did you actually see the alleged crime being committed? Did you actually see the act of murder? Of course you didn't, then by your standards, there is no way to convict someone unless you where actually there witnessing it yourself.

The mechanism in inferring guilt in trails is analious to that of science, we weigh the inferred evidence provided to make a reasonable assessment. This is why the law says "beyond a reasonable doubt." because one can always make an argument that cannot be disproved. e.g. "aliens abducted me and made me do it", that’s why there is always that operative word reasonable .


This is a good example of how to proof something, but its not scientific. Evolution is not science, its a forensic case which is subject to all kind of problems. It may work, it may not work, and that why its not science.

Hence, the theory of gravity explains how an apple falls from a tree. Why the planets circle the sun in the way they do. It is inferring  a conclusion from observations. This is the exact same way as inferring a guilty verdict, the existence of the Oort cloud (although existence of the Oort cloud is less certain), and the exact same way scientists inferred evolution.


Gravity, unlike molecules-to-man evolution, is something that is testable via the scientific method.

Forensic cases are not exactly the same as what you can obtain via emperical testing. The failure to understand this has put many people under the death penalty with not enough evidence to justify it.

This type of thinking is a good example of how evolution has damaged not only science, but the ability of people to think in general.

There are 3 basicc systems of perception, rationalism, empericism, and faith. The existance of the oort cloud is somthing that is believed to exist, i.e. its not a product of rationalism, or empericism, or rather its a product of faith. That faith, whether you like it or not, is no different that the faith a Christian has in Christ, or a Muslim in Alla, its just directed at a different object.

If you ask an evolutionary biologist, who is true to his scientific nature, "what is the meaning of life?". the only real valid response he can give is, "i dont know, go ask a priest".


If you ask him how did man come upon planet earth, what would he say?

Terry

#25 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 13 November 2006 - 07:39 PM

Inference from evidence is only science when a cause-and-effect relationship is established via the scientific method.
This is a good example of how to proof something, but its not scientific.  Evolution is not science, its a forensic case which is subject to all kind of problems.  It may work, it may not work, and that why its not science.
Gravity, unlike molecules-to-man evolution, is something that is testable via the scientific method.

View Post


oh really?

i admit, because of the inherent properties of evolutionary theory, it is hard to accurately observe in real time the process occuring. but it is being done...


http://www.santarosa...2/ensatina2.htm

EXERPT:

"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?

Research on enzymes, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, are now being conducted by David Wake at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley. These studies by Wake, show evidence in support of the idea that Ensatina eschscholtzi is a species complex that is now breaking up into two or more species.


later on down...

The Ensatina complex appears to be a classical example of Darwinian evolution by gradualism; an accumulation of micromutations that is now leading to the formation of new species.


how do you go about explaining this?

#26 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2006 - 08:09 PM

oh really?


Yes, really.....

i admit, because of the inherent properties of evolutionary theory, it is hard to accurately observe in real time the process occuring. but it is being done...
http://www.santarosa...2/ensatina2.htm


This does not qualify as goo-to-you evolution. You can change salamaders into different species of salamanders all day long, but that is not scientific evidence for goo-to-you evolution.

Creationsism requires the same kind of speciation, do you consder it evidence for creation?

Terry

#27 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 13 November 2006 - 08:37 PM

Yes, really.....
This does not qualify as goo-to-you evolution.  You can change salamaders into different species of salamanders all day long, but that is not scientific evidence for goo-to-you evolution.

Creationsism requires the same kind of speciation, do you consder it evidence for creation?

Terry

View Post


Hmmm, I always thought creationists denied speciation, but agreed with micro evolution. Micro evolution is the changing in frequencies of a trait within a population; macro evolution is speciation into new species that cannot interbreed. By definition, two populations that cannot interbreed are two separate species, which is clearly evident here

please cite where creationism requires speciation, I thought it was contrary to it.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 November 2006 - 09:40 PM

Rubico, if you are a true agnostic. How can you take sides in a debate?

#29 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 13 November 2006 - 10:44 PM

Rubico, if you are a true agnostic. How can you take sides in a debate?

View Post

When it comes to the existence of god yes I am a total agnostic. I do not think that science can or will ever be able to prove or disprove a god. That is simply not its realm. Science is not an assault on faith, many people take it as that, but essentially it’s a mechanism to explain natural phenomena by natural means. I think it takes just as much faith for an atheist to proclaim there is no creator as it does for a preacher to preach a sermon.

Mind you, when I say "creator" I mean "the entity that set things in motion" I have yet to see any evidence that can be verified for a god that intervenes in the physical world. But when you really look at evolution, really study the mechanisms behind it, evolution actually points me to faith, how could a process that creates all variations in life on earth, a process so ingenious by nature, just happen?

So, even though I believe firmly that there is no god that intervenes in our daily lives, I think that there is quite a good chance that a god set everything in motion.


but anyways, im still quite interested in what you mentioned, that creationism requires spectaion, could you answer that?

#30 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 14 November 2006 - 01:09 AM

I guess you don't read. The plant is already up and running. Link from the OP: http://www.matr.net/article-6837.html

View Post

Yes, I read that the pilot plant is turning out an oil-product from, mainly, turkey waste. I didn't read anywhere that they have so far managed to scale it into an economical waste reprocessing system, and I didn't read anywhere that the end-product was identical to fossil oil.

That is the main point in this discussion: The fact that you can turn stuff into an oil product does in no way falsify the notion that fossil oil is indeed --- fossil.

Hans

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 November 2006 - 01:19 AM

Yes, I read that the pilot plant is turning out an oil-product from, mainly, turkey waste. I didn't read anywhere that they have so far managed to scale it into an economical waste reprocessing system, and I didn't read anywhere that the end-product was identical to fossil oil.

That is the main point in this discussion: The fact that you can turn stuff into an oil product does in no way falsify the notion that fossil oil is indeed --- fossil.

Hans

View Post


So I guess it most be producing a waste byproduct that is only good for polluting our rivers and streams? :(

And why is a fossil needed to produce oil?

And why do not the scientist conduct their own test to disprove this, unless they cannot. Because all I see here is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence to counter what has been brought up. So if the plant is not able to produce actual oil, where is your actual evidence? And if this cannot be done at all, where is the tests to prove it?

#32 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 14 November 2006 - 01:29 AM

So I guess it most be producing a waste byproduct that is only good for polluting our rivers and streams? :(

And why is a fossil needed to produce oil?

And why do not the scientist conduct their own test to disprove this, unless they cannot. Because all I see here is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence to counter what has been brought up. So if the plant is not able to produce actual oil, where is your actual evidence? And if this cannot be done at all, where is the tests to prove it?

View Post

That is not what I'm saing at all. I'm saying that the oil produced is not the same as fossil oil. It can replace fossil oil in a number of applications, just like mustard seed oil and a number of other renewable oil sources, but it is not identical to fossil oil.

May I remind you that the onus of proof is not on me, in this case. You claimed that the fact that oil can be produced from waste materials (which we may assume resemble the raw material for fossil oil) shows that fossil oil may also be of recent origin. Since your source does in fact not claim this (because it just says that the product resembles crude oil), I am rejecting your claim, and if you want to support it, you need to provide additional evidence.



Hans

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 November 2006 - 01:36 AM

That is not what I'm saing at all. I'm saying that the oil produced is not the same as fossil oil. It can replace fossil oil in a number of applications, just like mustard seed oil and a number of other renewable oil sources, but it is not identical to fossil oil.

May I remind you that the onus of proof is not on me, in this case. You claimed that the fact that oil can be produced from waste materials (which we may assume resemble the raw material for fossil oil) shows that fossil oil may also be of recent origin. Since your source does in fact not claim this (because it just says that the product resembles crude oil), I am rejecting your claim, and if you want to support it, you need to provide additional evidence.
Hans

View Post


And if it did claim it, what would be your next work around to try and deny it?

So tell me, what are they producing from this plant? Snake oil?

#34 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 14 November 2006 - 03:37 AM

And if it did claim it, what would be your next work around to try and deny it?

So tell me, what are they producing from this plant? Snake oil?

View Post

Try? I carefully pointed out that your source did not indicate that hte newly produced oil is identical to fossil oil.

What kind of oil? What do you mean? I do suppose you are aware that the term "oil" covers literally thousands of different substances? Even fossil oils are different; so different that they can often find the perpetrators of oil spills at sea by analyzing the oil.

And exactly therefore does the observation that oil can be produced as new not serve as evidence that fossil oil is not old.

Hans

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 November 2006 - 07:57 AM

Okay, I see I have to bring what is said over here for a break down of words.

The first stage of the thermal process has been around since the 1960s as a way to convert organic waste into hydrocarbon liquids. But the process has been inefficient, says Changing World chief technology officer Terry Adams, because it typically employs a single reactor both to heat the organic matter and to convert it into oil.


So here we have the inefficient way of doing this.

Now here is where they fix the problem by by using to main reactors.

That creates nonuniform heating, which breaks down molecules unevenly and results in a low-grade oil. Changing World uses two main reactors that heat and pressurize much more efficiently. And the system handles not only turkey offal but tires, plastics, sludge, municipal waste, paper, and livestock remains—expanding its potential for widespread use.


So here we have the two reactor fix making the process efficient. And for now, the system only uses turkey offal. But to add other material in the future will expand it's potential for widespread use.

“They have certainly produced the products they’ve claimed at a smaller scale,” says MIT chemical engineer Jefferson Tester, who visited a pilot plant in Philadelphia and is intrigued by the larger-scale possibilities. Mother Nature can definitely transform the same products into usable fuel; you’d just have to wait a little longer.



So here we have a MIT chemical engineer, who visited the pilot plant and said that they have produced the products they are claiming. Then further down it says that mother nature can transform the same products. Now what are the same products?

The reason it is called hydrocarbon liquid is because it is not made from, what you called fossils. But then again, you cannot prove that only fossils can make crude oil. And this plant puts that into question. And it also says that they were making the same products as mother nature.

Now the second part is a different plant. And here's what they do:

A $20 million facility at ConAgra's Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, Mo., is undergoing testing and is expected to start using the technique by the end of May, said Terry Adams, chief technology officer for Changing World Technologies. The plant ultimately will grind up, heat, pressurize, and process 200 tons a day of leftover turkey innards, bones, feathers, fats, and grease — enough to produce 600 barrels of oil daily, officials say.


600 barrels of oil.

Appel recently showed off the techniques at a pilot plant at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center.


The pilot plant was the first plant.

In one end went tires, ground to quarter-inch bits by a giant industrial shredder. Out the other end came a caramel-colored liquid that resembles crude oil. The plants can sell the oil to fuel blenders for use in home heating or power-generating fuel. Refineries could process it as they do crude oil. Utilities could burn it for power. The process will digest just about anything: garbage, medical waste, hog manure, old tires.


Working in this type of field that deals with oils (synthetic oil distributor). I can tell you that if the finished product can be blended as they are saying, right from the plant, to be burned as fuel. The product produced is already a better grade then the actual crude oil (which you cannot burn without major pollution) that is pumped from the ground. Then it says: Refineries could process this as they do crude oil. Which means it can be put into a functioning tower, heated to specific temps, and separated (cracked) it into different petroleum products. Which would be anything like: Diesel fuel, jet fuel, gas, all type of lubricating oils (oils for your car, and heavy equipment etc...).

Now, here is what refineries do with hydrocarbon base products, to convert to finished petroleum products: http://www.chemistry...ry/Oil_refinery

There is even a newer process called hydro-cracking (a oil refining process). But we won't get into that because it does not specifically deal with this subject. But it can be used to refine this plant made product as well.

#36 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2006 - 02:35 PM

Hmmm, I always thought creationists denied speciation, but agreed with micro evolution. Micro evolution is the changing in frequencies of a trait within a population; macro evolution is speciation into new species that cannot interbreed. By definition, two populations that cannot interbreed are two separate species, which is clearly evident here

please cite where creationism requires speciation, I thought it was contrary to it.

View Post


Fred's comments sum it up pretty well.

The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution"1 [emphasis in original].  This type of "evolution" is widely accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike and is not in dispute. It really amounts to minor genetic variation that may result from selective breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress on a population resulting in adaptation to an environment (i.e. the peppered moth in England, or drug-resistant bacteria). Microevolution is a misnomer, since it is not evolution as most people understand the word, but instead is adaptation and variation within a kind of organism - lizards are still lizards, dogs are still dogs, and peppered moths are still peppered moths! Evolutionists invariably appeal to this kind of "evolution" as "proof" for their theory.


Fred's Commentary

Terry

#37 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 14 November 2006 - 06:31 PM

Fred's comments sum it up pretty well.
Fred's Commentary

Terry

View Post


apparently you dont know the definition of Speciation, which is when two populations have evolved though micro-evloution to the point where they can no longer interbreed.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Speciation

speciation is the barrier between micro and macro evloution, spectation means that two populations diverged genetically to the point where they cannot interbreed and have beome two new species, which baiscally means macro evolution, which of course you disagree with.

ill repeat my example of it for you of speciation being observed in real time....

"i admit, because of the inherent properties of evolutionary theory, it is hard to accurately observe in real time the process occuring. but it is being done...


http://www.santarosa...2/ensatina2.htm

EXERPT:

"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?

Research on enzymes, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, are now being conducted by David Wake at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley. These studies by Wake, show evidence in support of the idea that Ensatina eschscholtzi is a species complex that is now breaking up into two or more species.


later on down...

The Ensatina complex appears to be a classical example of Darwinian evolution by gradualism; an accumulation of micromutations that is now leading to the formation of new species.


how do you go about explaining this?"

#38 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2006 - 08:07 PM

apparently you dont know the definition of Speciation, which is when two populations have evolved though micro-evloution to the point where they can no longer interbreed.


Oh, I'm quite aware of that definition, but appatently you still don't understand the creationist view of speciation.

how do you go about explaining this?"


There's nothing to explain.....

Speciation, even to the point where two populations can no longer interbeed, is accepted by creationists, and fits with what is needed to explain the diversity of life since the flood. It does not demonstrate goo-to-you evolution, and that's what we are debating on this Forum.

Do you really believe that turning salamanders into salamanders is proof that you can turn a microbe into a human being? :P

Terry

#39 rubico

rubico

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • memphis, TN

Posted 14 November 2006 - 09:08 PM

oh wow, id thought id never see the day. but ok i didnt not know that speciation was accepted among some creationists, im sorry about that misunderstanding

Oh, I'm quite aware of that definition, but appatently you still don't understand the creationist view of speciation.
There's nothing to explain.....

Speciation, even to the point where two populations can no longer interbeed, is accepted by creationists, and fits with what is needed to explain the diversity of life since the flood. 


whats "needed to explain"? sounds alot like pre-concevied notions to me


Do you really believe that turning salamanders into salamanders is proof that you can turn a microbe into a human being?

You over simplify it, there is no theory that suggests a blob of primordial goop turned into a human spontaneously

if you accept speciation, then tell me what mechanism is keeping you from extrapolating that... say... a few hundred thousand years, is it not inconceivable to suggest, that because these populations can no longer interbreed, and live in different habitats, that traits specific to the populations will continue building? These salamanders already look different only after a couple hundred years; and they have already split far enough to where they cannot interbreed. Is it impossible that you can magnify this to a hundred thousand, or a million years?? What would they look like then?

Probably a lot defend than they do now

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 November 2006 - 10:06 PM

When it comes to the existence of god yes I am a total agnostic. I do not think that science can or will ever be able to prove or disprove a god. That is simply not its realm. Science is not an assault on faith, many people take it as that, but essentially it’s a mechanism to explain natural phenomena by natural means. I think it takes just as much faith for an atheist to proclaim there is no creator as it does for a preacher to preach a sermon.

Mind you, when I say "creator" I mean "the entity that set things in motion" I have yet to see any evidence that can be verified for a god that intervenes in the physical world. But when you really look at evolution, really study the mechanisms behind it, evolution actually points me to faith, how could a process that creates all variations in life on earth, a process so ingenious by nature, just happen?

So, even though I believe firmly that there is no god that intervenes in our daily lives, I think that there is quite a good chance that a god set everything in motion.
but anyways, im still quite interested in what you mentioned, that creationism requires spectaion, could you answer that?

View Post


If evolution points you to a Creator. Then you are a theistic evolutionist. Agnostic means that you don't know, period. Because the moment you take sides, is the very moment you are not agnostic. And the only side I see you take is all that supports evolution. And the only time you really speak about God or faith, is when someone pins you down about it.

Example:
1) How much of creation do you ponder, or believe? 1% maybe?
2) How much of science and it's theory of evolution do you believe? 95%?

This is what I get from your posts, I see a mind already made up. I do not see a mind that is in question about what the truth is. You have already decided. How do I know? I have debated all types for almost 5 years. I have only seen two actual agnostics. They do not debate anywhere near the way you do. And they do not debate like any other person I have ever seen.

A person who vitually knows everything about one side of the issue, but knows virtually nothing about the other side. Nor do they really want to know. Is not agnostic.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users