Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...don't evolutionists believe that ALL dinosaurs disappeared at once, leaving the earth barren of living reptiles.....and then somehow started over again as croc-a-gators out of swamp slime???
No, I don't know any who believe that. Many species of dinosaurs died off relatively quickly (over a few thousand years), but the earth was not barren of reptiles. Crocs/gators have a different branch from turtles, snakes, and lizards, not to mention birds and mammals. I'm pretty sure all of those types of reptiles were around before the KT extinction.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
..."pretty sure" huh? Well, think again! Commenting on the new theory and the apparent sudden extinction of the dinosaurs, one science writer admits: “They could shake the foundations of evolutionary biology and call into question the current concept of natural selection.”
University of Arizona scientist David Jablonski concludes that ‘for many plants and animals, extinction was abrupt and somehow special. Mass extinctions are not merely the cumulative effects of gradual dyings. Something unusual happened.’ Their arrival was also abrupt. Scientific American observes: “The sudden appearance of both suborders of the pterosaurs without any obvious antecedents is fairly typical of the fossil record.” That is also the case with dinosaurs. Their relatively sudden appearance and disappearance contradicts the commonly accepted view of slow evolution.
Dinosaurs appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct.
.....oh, by the way....I'm "pretty sure" about that, too!
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Now that's an IDesque name.
You can't reasonably explain how the jaw even came about...you start with fish who already has a jaw.
You can't reasonably explain how the skeletal system even came about...you start with fish who already had a skeleton.
You can't reasonably explain how the circulatory system came about...you start with fish who already had a circulatory system.
You can't reasonably explain how the reproductive system came about...you start with fish who already had a reproductive system.
You can't reasonably explain how sexual differentiation came about...you start with fish who were already sexually differentiated.
All of these systems are irreducibly complex. They couldn't have come about by accident.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Creationists believe in variability within kinds. It is designed variation.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It seems like you are talking about the science of nutrigenomics.
It is how food talks to your genes.
The information your body receives from the food you eat turns your genes on and off.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
There is NO such thing as evolution. It is all de-evolution!!!!!
MVP
Well-Known Member
Has nothing to do with ID. More like symbol of maturity/wisdom at the age when they erupt. And you avoided and did not answered my question.
I sometimes can't understand if you really sincere in what you are posting or just specifically ignoring and avoiding all the facts about fish evolution, skull evolution, jaw evolution, etc, etc, we posted before. We never start with fish, what the heck are talking about?
There is numerous scientific theories how most primitive life started on Earth and it does not include intelligent design. We already talked about it, I am so surprised that you keep coming back to it.
MVP
Well-Known Member
That must be the most unbelievable statement from all creationism delusions I have read in this thread. So basically you saying that designer created variability which is not evident at first but starts happening after some time because designer installed it and programed it to appear after hundreds or thousands of years. Fantastic.
That's always a wise idea. The KT extinction event was 65 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
The first turtles show up 220 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle
Lizards are dated between 250 and 200 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard
Snakes to 125 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake
Croco/gator family goes back at least 125 million years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia
Therapod dinosaurs, the ancestors to birds, were a distinct group 230 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda
Mammals no later than 167 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals
So, to be clear, almost no one believes all retiles died out at once and were remade from the crocodilians.
That's the great thing about science; it adapts to new data.
Yep. The KT extinction even was caused by a massive meteor. The Permian extinction by unequaled volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.
As usual, you're wrong. The ancestors dinosaurs are archosaurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....the only "fact" you have is that Klinko's back tattoo is permanent....and can only be removed by laser treatment or scrapped off with a busted beer bottle! (The later being my choice!) Oh, and you do have "numerous scientific theories" but there all as believable as a "rhinoceros coming from the butterfly" and a marvelously functioning Universe came about by your blowing your nose!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....what is so difficult for you to see or understand when we say that within a "kind" you can have variety of color, size and even shape.....but you can NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER....produce a completely different specie? You can have a variety of cats in the "cat" family. You can have a variety of dogs in the "dog" family. Each “kind” has the genetic potential for great variety. Thus there are reportedly more than 400 different breeds of dogs and upwards of 250 breeds and types of horses. All inter-fertile varieties of any animal are just one Genesis “kind.” Similarly, all varieties of humans—Oriental, African, Caucasian, those as tall as the seven-foot Dinka in the Sudan and as short as the four-foot-four-inch Pygmies—stem from the one original pair, Adam and Eve.—Gen. 1:27,*28; 3:20.
Now, if you take a skink (a reptile) and put it in a cage with a hamster (a mammal) they will NOT mate....and they will NOT reproduce! Kapesh? I guess not.
MVP
Well-Known Member
you are so stupid.
picture removed by mod
Last edited by a moderator:
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
^Fixed(more!!!)
Even if your notion of a kind were biologically feasible, it is not Biblical. The Bible never says that all members of a kind can interbreed; you are adding that into the Biblical doctrine. Why do you follow the doctrines of men like this?
However, your notion is not biologically feasible. How about animals that mate and do not reproduce, are they the same kind? How about ring species, where perhaps A will mate with B, and B will mate with C, but A does not mate with C, are A and C the same kind? If all the offspring are stillborn, does that count as being the same kind? What if they all die before reaching sexual maturity? What if they reach maturity but are sexually infertile? Pandas don't interbreed with any other bear. Does that mean Pandas are of a different kind? There are many mosquito species that don't interbreed, does that mean there is more than one kind of mosquito?
So, since your doctrine is not Biblical, and is counter to biology, why do you hold on to it?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
In the context of this argument it would be nutrigenetics, not nutrigenomics. It's an important difference. Also, have you ever come across a proven study of a nutrigenetic relationship between diet and amylase?
I'll wait.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Conflict? I'd say inaccuracy. Let's remind ourselves of what you said that pushed me into action:
Alrighty then.
To make this even simpler, I'll just stick to the example that One Brow mentioned (and you ignored):
I'll try to be simple and succinct: the body has two proteins that it uses to shuttle oxygen around the body: hemoglobin, and myoglobin. Myoglobin and hemoglobin are extremely genetically related-- the major difference is this: hemoglobin is assembled from several similar subunits (let's call them 'globin-monomers' for the sake of this conversation) that came to fruition from gene duplication. Well, the question becomes this: what was the original function of the gene that coded for the 'globin-monomer' before it duplicated?
Answer: it was myoglobin (or it's analogue at that point in time).
Myoglobin is coded by the gene called MB here is the link for the gene info
If you want to think of it this way, 4 myoglobins that assemble together make a structure really, really similar to hemoglobin. This is how hemoglobin arose. This has been proven ad-nauseum.
Now, as anyone with some basic human physiology might know, hemoglobin and myoglobin serve completely different functions: and it's purely because of how many subunits the protein has.
Let's look at their oxygen-binding curves, to try and point out what I am talking about:
Since hemoglobin has 4 major subunits, in other words 4 spots where oxygen can bind, it has a sigmoidal curve. What this means is that it doesn't bind oxygen extremely tightly right away-- the binding is a lot more loose, and the affinity of hemoglobin to oxygen is very modifiable by factors that exist in the bloodstream (1,3 BPG, H+, etc.)
Depending on what the summated state of the subunits of hemoglobin are, it has different states that either bind oxygen tightly or release it. These two states make it possible for hemoglobin to bind oxygen tightly when it comes in through the lungs and then release it easily when it gets to the body tissues (that need the oxygen).
In contrast, myoglobin is usually more involved in the body tissues where the oxygen is used. It binds oxygen with a greater affinity than hemoglobin. This is not by accident. It receives the oxygen transported by hemoglobin and keeps it there until it is needed by the body tissue.
Hence, hemoglobin, stemming from the historic-myoglobin, now serves a different function because it's duplicated subunits make it's affinity more sensitive to oxygen levels, allowing it to take in loads of oxygen from the lungs, and give up loads of oxygen to the myglobin in the tissues, where it can then divvy up the oxygen to the tissues that need it most.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
What I said IS Biblical and NOT counter to biology! The Bible does not say that every individual plant and animal was created directly by God......only basic kinds. Within each kind a great variety could develop over thousands of years. For example, many different types of cats could develop within the cat family, or different dogs in the dog family, or different humans within the human family.
It's funny how you evolutionists want us to accept or believe that with "millions of years of time" these monstrous, galactical changes have take place but when we say that over a period of hundreds perhaps thousands of year certain "varieties" within a kind could be produced....you call us "stupid" and "fairytale believers!"
Genesis chapter one says that each basic kind could produce offspring only “according to its kind.” So while the varieties within a kind could mate and produce offspring, that would not be true outside the kind. One kind could not mate and produce offspring with another kind. Nor could one kind ever change into another kind. That would be true no matter how long a time was involved. Fish would forever stay fish, birds forever birds, land animals forever land animals, and humans forever humans.
If evolution is true, the evidence should support a gradual changing of one kind of living thing into another kind. There must be at least some evidence of this in living things, in the fossil record, and even in laboratory and field experiments.
But if the Bible is true, then we should not find any changing of one Genesis kind into another. There should be great variety within basic kinds, but unbridgeable gaps between basic kinds. This should be true in living things and in the fossil record. It should also be impossible for experiments to bridge these gaps between basic kinds.
If evolution is true, there should be evidence of the beginnings of new structures in living things. There should have been an abundance of developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other organs and bones. This should be true in the fossil record and even in some living things today. At the very least there should be some partially developed structures somewhere!
Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average!
Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed .*.*. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”
Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].”
So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1)*stability and (2)*limited ranges of variation.
The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion .*.*. that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth
Therefore, there are gaping holes in the evidence for evolution. And these “gaping holes” have widened with the passing of time. Evidence has poured in about heredity, cell structure, DNA, the complexity of living things, breeding experiments, as well as the fossil record. From all this evidence it has become more and more obvious to impartial, honest observers that the facts overwhelmingly support creation, not evolution.