Science vs. Creationism

[Bawse Dawg]

>is trying to validate his argument by attempting to reduce the theoretical number of numbers.

>ignores the rest of the factors that would make such a thing impossible.

>literally thinks an old man and his family built a giant boat and housed every animal on earth in it while the earth was flooded.

>lawl


Dat app doe.

 

[♪alt13]

...hey numb nuts! I hate to call you names, but since your a hot shot college chump, I can't help myself!

The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by the Creator were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today.

Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873)

However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark.

Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B.*C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A.*M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p.*69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

3,500,000,000 years is not long enough for evolution to happen, but 5000-6000 is long enough for a couple hundred critters to differentiate into all the species(let alone populations)that exist today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKhUqmI0Zic

 

[MVP]

..So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

So they had a pair of platypus?

 

[Tarkanian]

>literally thinks an old man and his family built a giant boat and housed every animal on earth in it while the earth was flooded.

I even watched a movie about it!
They filmed it so it must be true!

 

[carolinajazz]

3,500,000,000 years is not long enough for evolution to happen, but 5000-6000 is long enough for a couple hundred critters to differentiate into all the species(let alone populations)that exist today.

.....you failed to take into account that animals reproduce rapidly, much more so than humans, and since there reproductive system was whole, functioning and completely intact there was rapid expansion in the animal kingdom that makes not only more sense but has been substantiated by OBSERVATION by even the most casual observers!

 

[babe]

I don't think that it was meant to be a reply.
I have been saying it all along, tho it has been falling on deaf ears.
Creationist version is NOT less scientific than the evolutionary theorizing.
Both have no chance to be repeated or observed.
Before onebrah wrote that reply, you actually gave the reply that 9x,x% of the scientists are pro-evolution!
Paradigmatic change had already taken place in biology.
It prolly started the moment Darwin set his feet on Galapagos, tho he is not the very first person who came up with the idea of evolution.
The same can happen to it one day!

edit: read Kuhn, if not already done that. You'll like it!
mandatory edit: JV sucks!

In respect to this particular claim, there is one difference between the two approaches. There has been no fanatical effort from the "Creationist School of Science" over the past one hundred and sixty years of history to jam every possible "fact" into an ideologically pure world view that "explains" how the Creator did it all, starting with the first two atoms being combined to make the first necessary component of "life".

While we are now in danger of a concerted Creationist ideological "scientific" campaign of that sort, it will be an "uphill" battle. The Creationists will have to found some new scientific journals, to produce "peer-reviewed" research reports, they will have to find a bunch of billionaires to compromise university faculties with tantalizing "grants", they will have to start a "creationist" political movement comparable to the progressive movement. . . . perhaps sans the dreary-eyed long-haired dissolute unwashed bums who live for nothing but to occupy college dorms and swill coffee. . . . ., and they will have to take over Hollywood and the mass media somehow. . . .

But to the point, every bit of science, whatever it is or will be, is just as much a proof of how "The Creator" did it as it will ever be of how "it happened by chance or as simple result of the existence of scientific principles or laws, plus time." For that matter, conceptually, the belief in self-existing principles and laws, or a "material universe operating on material stuff across an expanse of time" is just as much a "religious" idea as the idea of an almighty God. It requires us to deny a whole lot of possibilities we have no means of testing or evaluating, and to accept the proposition on a sort of faith that what we know, or think we know, explains everything. . . . even everything we have no means of seeing, testing, and proving, in a domain we have never even imagined. . . .

And of course "The State" is obviously supposed to promote this "faith" in public indoctrination camps. . . .. just like under Medieval kingdoms the Church priests were promoting ideas such as how God had ordained nations and kings with Divine authority to rule the faithful nations. . . . .

 

[One Brow]

The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, ...

This teaching is not found in nature nor in the Bible. Neither sets a limit on the boundary of a kind.

Of course, it's really not surprising that an atheist knows the Bible better than a Biblical literalist.

... 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today.

Being mammals ourselves, it's natural that we see differences in mammals more clearly than differences in lizards or snakes. The reality is that there is more in common with a cow and horse than there is with a gharial and a crocodile. Just among the alligators/gharials/crocodiles/caimans you have more than 10 kinds.

However, one of the things I find truly ironic is the creations who believe in super-evolution, evolution that happens in the blink of a geological eye, capable of box turtles and sea turtles from a common ancestor in 4000 years, but not capable of a fish gradually developing legs in 40 million years.

9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark.

This teaching is not found in nature nor in the Bible. Neither sets a limit on the boundary of a kind.

Sea creature die when the salinity in the water decreases rapidly, and fresh water creatures dies when it increases rapidly. At least one type would have been killed off in a global flood.

 

[MVP]

.....you failed to take into account that animals reproduce rapidly, much more so than humans

What is pregnancy of an elephant?camel? giraffe?rhino?tapir? and finally one animal you are most likely associated with by anybody reading this thread - A DONKEY?

 

[babe]

^^^he is right.
more complexity ::::> smaller probability of evolution

This is true only in the case of "evolution" from a purely materialistic origin.

A general understanding of statistical probabilities is sufficient for this "a priori" position.

Some evolutionists observe and report. . . . and theorize. . . . about how favorable events are "conserved" and propagated rapidly through multiple "applications" of successful strategies. That kind of thinking borders on ID. While denying an organizing intelligence or more specifically a "Creator" or "Designer" or "God", it acknowledges a fundamental trend in living things. . .. the capacity to act and respond in a way that favors "life". And diversity in life.

If you believe in a "God" or even "Cognition/Response" capacity inherent in "life", the probability of "evolution" is 1. Because "evolution" in that sense would be the certainty of an intelligent effort to propagate life by all possible means.

 

[One Brow]

This is true only in the case of "evolution" from a purely materialistic origin.

It is in no way true for a purely materialistic version of evolution. Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.

 

[PearlWatson]

Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.

Oxymoron

 

[babe]

It is in no way true for a purely materialistic version of evolution. Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.

Complexity is not as statistically probable as simplicity in any system. . . .

 

[One Brow]

Oxymoron

https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/system

1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system

a group of related parts that move or work together

Systems don't need to be governed. for example, the water cycle is a system.

 

[One Brow]

Complexity is not as statistically probable as simplicity in any system. . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory

Randomly created strings tend to have maximal complexity for the string size.

 

[carolinajazz]

You don't think mutation and selection happen?

...oh, I believe "mutations" happen and some aspects of the animal kingdom do survive better than others when presented with various environments. However, 99% of mutations are harmful to the organism AND mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals!

And decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.*Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.

 

[♪alt13]

...oh, I believe "mutations" happen and some aspects of the animal kingdom do survive better than others when presented with various environments. However, 99% of mutations are harmful to the organism AND mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals!

And decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.*Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.

Oh yeah, then where did these things come from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaXEzvosnSE
Bacon?

 

[LogGrad98]

Mmmmmm. Bacon.

 

[PearlWatson]

One Brow: Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.
One Brow: [System]= A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

So complexity is an expected result from a complex whole.
Darwiniac: Hey guys, a complex whole is complex!

An oxymoron wrapped in a redundancy is even better than a plain old oxymoron.

*******
One Brow: Systems don't need to be governed. for example, the water cycle is a system.

I'm going to follow your liberal "logic":
Patterns don't need to be repetitive. for example, the water cycle is a pattern.
Oceans don't need to be salty. for example, the Pacific is an ocean.
American Presidents don't need to live in the white house. for example, Obama is the president.

 

[PearlWatson]

Randomly created strings tend to have maximal complexity for the string size.

Oxymoron

 

[babe]

https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/system

1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system

a group of related parts that move or work together

Systems don't need to be governed. for example, the water cycle is a system.

Of course you would view the water cycle, solar system, etc etc as "ungoverned", except perhaps by the natural laws or principles operating upon them. . . . sunlight, heat, vapor pressure and condensation point, and gravity, etc. . . . . but you cannot materially address the root cause of these laws or systems. Your assertion that they are "ungoverned" is a claim based on blind faith in the Godlessness of the world and universe.

nice of you to set so clearly out for all to see the baselessness of your position. Being blind to the axioms of the other side of a debate is a quick way to lose it, in the eyes of most debate judges.