Jump to content


Something Fishy About The Global Flood


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 04:55 AM

I might take offence at being called an ape, but call yourself and your parents whatever you like. All the maternity hospitals around here only admit humans. The only apes around here are contained in the zoo. Just because some one says that we are the same kind of animal, when observations shows the diametrical opposite,  means absolutely zilch. That's their belief. We all have them.


Well "ape" is a broad term that encompasses everyone in the primate family, so unless you want to say you're not a primate, than you are also an ape by definition. It would be like saying 'I'm not a mammal, I'm a human'. It's not a belief, it's an observation, otherwise known in science as a fact.

You might believe you are more evolved than your mother or father because on average you have about 40 more mutations. But let me tell you this son, your mother and father are more capable genetically than you will ever be.


Glossing over the blatant ad hominin attack, I'd like to address the 40 mutations thing. It is actually more like 120, if my memory serves me well it is on average 128 mutations per human zygote.

Until next time, may Christ be your shalom.

#82 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 05:34 AM

Well said Darkness45. From a good video on phylogenetics;

“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.


Apes are a subset of this group; we are specifically in the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Do you accept that they all belong in that group? If you do then there is no way to exclude humans; entire genome comparisons confirm that we are more closely related to chimps than gorillas are, and we are more closely related to gorillas than orangutans are.

Posted Image

You can no more exclude humans from the taxonomic group 'apes' than you can exclude lions from the group 'cats'.

Continuing on, I fail to see why so many creationists didn't understand my basic point. Humans are apes, therefore a human giving birth is an example of "an ape giving birth to a human" in the same way it is an example of a mammal giving birth to a human.

#83 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 February 2010 - 05:41 AM

Humans are apes, therefore a human giving birth is an example of "an ape giving birth to a human" in the same way it is an example of a mammal giving birth to a human.

View Post


Therefore you cannot substantiate that assertion with empirical facts Tezza?

#84 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 06:02 AM

How can you not understand this?

Humans give birth to humans - 'empirical fact'
Humans are apes - 'empirical fact'
Therefore apes give birth to humans - 'empirical fact'

Alternatively;
Humans give birth to humans
Humans are mammals
Therefore mammals give birth to humans

#85 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 06:28 AM

From the first sentence from the wiki page on "Ape":

"An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans."

From the first sentence from the wiki page on "human":

"Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family."

Hopefully that will clear up any confusion.

#86 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 26 February 2010 - 06:33 AM

Thanks McStone and hope you are well.



Lucy, stop deliberately getting bogged down in semantics.


You made a logical statement that was false. No semantics involved.

I'm not looking forward to replying to your entire post McStone. For ease of debate please consider making your points a bit more brief. I'm not trying to prescribe how you should debate but just maybe have a bit of consideration for the people that want to respond.

From now on if you post such a long post I will only respond to one, two or three points.

For the record its not what evolution even postulates. Humans didnt suddenly spring forth from a chimp-like animal, and no one would dream of saying as much.



You didn't believe that your theory required that we evolved from a rock either, but now you've come around.

Human evolution, like that of all species, exists on a gradient. The only reason it looks so "distinct" is because of our reading frame. Because we are the only Homo species still alive, the differences with other species are more apparent.


Gradient and reading frame. Now you are talking my language McStone.

Human ancestors progressively acquired a number of characters; not least, an expansion of cranial capacity and bipedialism (linked, among other things to a changing environment, and observed, at the same time, in other ape species).

Please provide a description of the mechanism for which these acquisitions arose.

These can be traced though the fossil record, oh, and you guess it, are also confirmed by genetic evidence.


When you say "traced" you mean imagined. And when you say "confirmed by genetic evidence" I have no idea what you are talking about.


Despite best YEC argument, it doesnt change the fact that other human species existed; they are other human species, genetically isolated from us, despite sharing our ranges for hundreds of thousands of years. Puzzling that, wouldnt you say? And no, before you say it, they didnt suffer from some continental-wide bout of rickets or some head condition.

As far as I know there is only one species of humans. If you have evidence of other human species please provide it.

Your understanding of Abiogenesis is also cynical. Life formed from organic compounds, which form spontaneously.


This, I assume, can be done in the lab.

Life, or the precusor of life,


Then which is it?

may well have come from some rock-catalysed reaction, (most probably clay) because Lucy, these things - called elements - are the same in rocks as they are in life forms, they are just, at the end of the day, in a different order. Life forms extract energy and elements from the environment around them. Sometimes indirectly through other organisms, sometimes directly, like the fascinating chemoautotrophs of hydrothermal vents,


No, they are not just in a different order, they are in a specific order.

who extract the energy from elemental sulphur - pumped, quite literally - from inside the earth. Carbon, once absorbed in the ocean, finds its way into rock, right at the bottom of the ocean, and, over past periods of time, may be slowly uplifted through metamorphism and volcanic activity, may enter the atmosphere, may be absorbed by plants, be eaten, respired and excreted and may enter the ocean again. You can actually trace the process. Plants are made from carbon atoms, which originally come from the ground. We all are.

You can imagine the process, you can't replicate it.

Does abiogenesis sound so silly now?


It sounds sillier now than it ever did.

If you are so different from this process, why do you breath? Why do you eat? Why didnt god think it appropriate to remove that most degrading process - that great leveller - going to the toliet? Like it or not, you are part of this world, and its rules.


I quite like going to the toilet. I breath because I have life within me. I eat because I get hungry.

As for your comments on god, believing in god is a personal belief. If the above stops you believing in god, so be it. If not, so be it.


Thanks. And if your belief in evolution fulfils your hearts yearning for the truth. Then so be it. Else keep searching.

I also find your opinions of "fertile minds" a bit ironic. Your alternative is so basic that, essentially, a 5 year old child with your worldview - despite having no life experience, or substantive education - would know the same about the world and its origin as an adult with your worldview.


"I wish everyone were like little children, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Beyond a certain layer, we dont find certain classes. It doesnt matter if these classes are still alive today, or that the classes are now extinct. The fossil record is graduated, beyond all reasonable assertions of

"well they lived in different areas"
Well they are both good books (by english authors, i might add), but i suspect you want to dig a little deeper then that.


Quadrupeds generally don't live in the ocean, they live on land. Fish don't generally live on land, they live in the sea. Which is lower, the land or the sea? Which would you expect to be in the lower sediments.

Here we go!

So let me spell it out as simply as i can:

At the very bottom of the fossil record (c. 1.7bya), we find simple eukaryotic organisms; algae mats and such. We dont find anything more complicated below them.
When we look at eukaryotic genomes, the simplest - not in terms of nucleotide number - the simplest in terms of genes and their products, are simple one celled organisms, just like the constituents of algae mats


Have a guess what these are;


Posted Image


A couple of miles down the beach from where I live. They are supposed to be 3.5 billion years old. Blue-green algae is the base layer of the fossil record. They still exist today in exactly the same form. Why didn't they evolve?; everything else did.
They are in the bottom layer because they live in the ocean and die and drop to the bottom of the ocean, before the flood.

We go a bit higher in the fossil record (c. 630mya), we start to find simple protostome animals - animals distinguished by their first embryonic hole becoming their mouth. We dont find protstomes any lower.
When we look at modern animal genomes, the simplest, in terms of body plan coding etc - are those of protostomes.


You say simple animals, can you please explain what you mean by a simple animal.

If we go even higher (c. 540mya), we start to see deutrostomes - the ancestors of all vertebrates.
Fossil deutrostomes are distinguished by the first embryonic hole becoming their ass. We dont find deutrostomes any lower.
If we look at modern deutrostome genomes, we see deutrostomes have the genes necessary to develop a core complicated infolding in the embryo.


Here your talking about sea slugs. Still at the bottom of the ocean, maybe just not so deep.

Higher still (c. 530mya), we see fossils progressively start displaying notochords, nerve cords, pharyngeal slits and craniums. We dont find these characters any lower.
If we look at modern animals with these characters, we find that genomes get more complicated with each of these additions. The new characters are added to the genome, but not in replace of the previous ones.


Still down in the depths of the earth.
The non-limbed brethren is an imaginative association. Still in the water.

and so on. Thats a worldwide pattern. Thats the best way i can explain it. Its not easy to read. But thats the general trend.


You're joking, that's it?

Then McStone answer this question for me please. How does inanimate matter develop a language to which the universe complies?

Note. I don' know where the syntax error is. I've checked all the marks. Please let me know if u find a mistake.

#87 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 February 2010 - 09:03 AM

Humans are apes - 'empirical fact'

View Post



When you make emphatic statements like the above Tezza, you are obligated to substantiate that assertion with the empirical evidence you claim. You have, as-of-yet, failed miserably to to so. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

Therefor Your statement is baseless and incoherent.

#88 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 February 2010 - 09:18 AM

From the first sentence from the wiki page on "Ape":

"An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans."

From the first sentence from the wiki page on "human":

"Humans are bipedal primates  belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family."

Hopefully that will clear up any confusion.

View Post


And, it is unfortunate for your worldview, that wiki doesn't provide a shred of empirical evidence for it's macro-evolutionary assertions. Therefore, it is strictly a "faith-based" statement.

#89 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 February 2010 - 10:25 AM

The evidence certaily matches the predictions of evolution.  Even a causal survey shows great variation of animals by oceanic separation (e.g. different mammals across similar habitat in South America, Africa, Australia etc.) and more land mammals and land reptiles on islands that were once continental such as Honshu or Ireland than those that are geologically new such as Hawaii or the Galapagos archipelago.

View Post

Which also fits the model of flood and following diversity through microevolution. So it still boils down to the timeline you choose to hold faith in.

#90 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 12:03 PM

Which also fits the model of flood and following diversity through microevolution.


Just out of interest, where exactly in the fossil record can we observe the radiation outwards from the middle east of all the animals on the ark?

#91 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 12:25 PM

Which also fits the model of flood and following diversity through microevolution.  So it still boils down to the timeline you choose to hold faith in.

View Post


The scriptural flood narrative states that all extant animals descend from the inhabitants of a single vessel that came to rest at a specific place. This does not predict that all 99 known species of lemur would head for the island of Madagascar or that most marsupials would head to the islands of Oceania and none live in the vast Eurasian and African land masses. The TOE and orthodox natural history does predict such disparity.

As for timelines, some people's may be faith-based. Personally, I would revise my understanding should anything invalidate the observed traces of natural history that are tree rings, coral growth patterns, snow layers in ice cores, calcite bed formation rates, parent/daughter isotope ratios (different versions of which corroborate each other where they overlap) and light travel times deduced from astronomical distances.

#92 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 01:30 PM

When you make emphatic statements like the above Tezza, you are obligated to substantiate that assertion with the empirical evidence you claim. You have, as-of-yet, failed miserably to to so. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

Therefor Your statement is baseless and incoherent.

View Post


Which characteristic do humans posses that excludes them from the great ape family???

Just out of interest, where exactly in the fossil record can we observe the radiation outwards from the middle east of all the animals on the ark?


This might be the funniest thing I've read all week.

#93 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 February 2010 - 02:34 PM

Which characteristic do humans posses that excludes them from the great ape family???

View Post


Don't you mean characteristics?

1- Write a poem
2- Build a watch
3- Read Shakespeare (although, I understand if a million monkeys had a million typewriters, in a million years, they could.... Oh never mind :lol: )
4- Design an automobile
5- Build the automobile
6- figure out how to make fire (etc... I could go on and on)

And, of course, your response still didn't do anything to refute my claim, or answer Tezza's baseless assertion.

When you make emphatic statements like the above Tezza, you are obligated to substantiate that assertion with the empirical evidence you claim. You have, as-of-yet, failed miserably to to so. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

View Post



Apparently, there are those who want us to be apes so bad, that they'll grasp onto anything to make it so :)

#94 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 26 February 2010 - 07:30 PM

Might want to check Bruce V's post here:

How similar are humans and chimpanzees when we look at the level of genes but at the level of gross morphology?  Consider the following differences:

1 The feet of chimpanzees are prehensile, in other words, their feet can grab anything their hands can.  Not so for humans.

2 Humans have a chin and protruding nose whereas apes do not.

3 Human females experience menopause; no other primates do (we only known mammal besides humans to experience menopause is the pilot whale)...

4. Humans are the only primate in which the breasts of the female are apparent when not nursing

5. Humans have a fatty interior layer of skin as do aquatic animals like whales and hippopotamuses; apes do not.

6.  Male apes have a bone in the (male private part) called a baculum (10 mm chimpanzees); humans do not.

7 Humans are mostly right handed. Chimpanzees show no handedness preference.

8.  Human sweat; apes do not.

9. Humans can consciously hold their breath; apes cannot.

10.  Humans are the only primates to weep.

These are just a few of the more obvious physical differences between humans and chimpanzees.  But the key difference, of course, resides in the intellectual, linguistic, and moral capacities of humans

From Design of Life (William Dembski/ Jonathan Wells) page 8

View Post


Those are some non-obvious characteristics.

#95 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 26 February 2010 - 08:15 PM

How does that work exactly?

"Thats an interesting theory Sir, but can you produce a picture"
"Well, not really, were dealing with vast scales here you understand. The geology of the whole world in fact"
"I see. Im going to have to mark you down"

No Scott, i cannot produce a nice little picture for you, because we are dealing with the real world here. As good as technology is, you cannot yet take a photograph downwards, through layers of rock, hundreds of meters thick. No one scientists knows everything. Thats the point. Indepedendant observations varified around the globe.
Around the globe, we dont find mammals below reptiles. No doubt thats enough for you to disregard "all that i have said". You can, however, find all the information - all the evidence you need - in actual journals - you know,  those things where people submit science? The journals Nature and Science are particularly good on "whole world" kind of stuff.

Nevertheless, heres a nice one about the carbon cycle i was telling you about:

Posted Image

Yes i know its a diagram. But at least the Sun isnt smiling in this one.

View Post



Ah McStone, but if only you would have studied your subject yet just a little bit more, because if you actually read the actual journals you too, would have noticed the accompaning pictures of the area's traveled. Of course I've already heard the claims that the Geological Time Column could not possibly exist all throughout the World... even though it rightly should, but doesn't even live up to existing complete, or even half complete all the way around the world, or in certain areas I might add.

McStone, I've already made a thread about the Geological Time Column, and yes real pictures were provided, but not with the results that you would think. Sorry but the Geological Time Column as you suggest, does not actually exist. Not in this reality, and not in this earth.

Plus the fossil layering you suggest doesn't exist either, because the actual research journals, and area's the fossils were found in confirm this.

Yes, you lived up to all my expectations, especially by providing a nicely drawn texbook diagram ( which I specifically asked you not to do)... but alas, it wasn't a drawing of the Geological Time Column... So I guess you've earned some points there.

#96 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 February 2010 - 08:31 PM

The TOE predicts that given 70 million years a class such as mammals could have diversified into many lifestyles even if in this case potential niches were limited by the hegemony of the reptiles.

View Post

And I can say that I am from Oz. It's words.

Please tell us from an engineering standpoint how this took place. You speak of evidence and predictions without a shred of 'how' this happened. We're talking unguided not only in the DNA, but what about the yet undiscovered enzymes, signal and regulatory appurati that surely guided and 'knit' the encoded proteins together to make new bio systems--as well as the accompanying ATP energy it took to achieve such a result?

Quite a feat of organization for something that is unguided! Please remember that each signal protein and enzyme has to be encoded also. And how are they programmed to guide? DNA does not have a brain.

#97 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 February 2010 - 06:19 AM

And I can say that I am from Oz.  It's words. 

Please tell us from an engineering standpoint how this took place.  You speak of evidence and predictions without a shred of 'how' this happened.  We're talking  unguided not only in the DNA, but what about the yet undiscovered enzymes, signal and regulatory appurati that surely guided and 'knit' the encoded proteins together to make new bio systems--as well as the accompanying ATP energy it took to achieve such a result? 

Quite a feat of organization for something that is unguided!  Please remember that each signal protein and enzyme has to be encoded also.  And how are they programmed to guide?  DNA does not have a brain.

View Post


I predict that the proponents of the "Model" of evolution will continue to fudge the multipliers (of time) to make evolution fit their predictions (sort of like stuffing sausage filler in a casing. but there's way too much sausage filler). Millions and billions of years that they cannot prove empirically, to fit within a faith filled fictitious model, whilst all the time denying the "Oz"lessness of their story.

#98 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2010 - 08:50 AM

And I can say that I am from Oz.  It's words. 

Please tell us from an engineering standpoint how this took place.  You speak of evidence and predictions without a shred of 'how' this happened.  We're talking  unguided not only in the DNA, but what about the yet undiscovered enzymes, signal and regulatory appurati that surely guided and 'knit' the encoded proteins together to make new bio systems--as well as the accompanying ATP energy it took to achieve such a result? 

Quite a feat of organization for something that is unguided!  Please remember that each signal protein and enzyme has to be encoded also.  And how are they programmed to guide?  DNA does not have a brain.

View Post


A genotype is translated into its expression through natural cauation and chemistry and the mediation of polypeptide chains. The same energy translates a mutant gene as one that has been faithfully copied. There is a selective bias against less effective cellular systems.

#99 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 27 February 2010 - 08:56 AM

Dr Kathleen Pollards work still shows a 1% difference...the researcher in your article is misinformed.

Kathleen Pollard website
Scientific American article

Peace

View Post

I could just as easily make the opposite claim. In any case, even granting the point for the sake of argument, I don't think it's nearly the 'slam dunk' argument for evolution that it's often portrayed as. I'm working on a post explaining my reasoning - I should have it done within a few days (maybe a week).

#100 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2010 - 08:57 AM

I predict that the proponents of the "Model" of evolution will continue to fudge the multipliers (of time) to make evolution fit their predictions (sort of like stuffing sausage filler in a casing. but there's way too much sausage filler). Millions and billions of years that they cannot prove empirically, to fit within a faith filled fictitious model, whilst all the time denying the "Oz"lessness of their story.

View Post


Fudge not necessary. Traces of past activity that demonstrate our Earth is significantly older than the OT suggests can be observed in tree rings, coral growth patterns, chalk bed formation rates, various parent/daughter isotope ratios, astronomical light travel times and snow layering in glacial cores. All such dating methods corroborate each other where they overlap.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users