It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   


Everybody has webbed feet. Your friend may have them more than others, so it's a matter of degree.


Ah yes but what is the cause of this "degree" , I'll save some time and tell you its a gene which controls this, or do you deny the existance of genes? Why people differ in various traits ? Ah yes again its the gene.What causes these same gene's to give different people different traits?Mutation.

People have been born with 6 fingers on each hand, this is a mutation not a matter of degree.





Mutations are always harmful. They are sometimes not fatal, but they are never an improvement. When genes are damaged or lost, the results are harmful. In speciation, genetic material that's already there emerges, and the new species is "specialized" - where you get the word "species" from. So because it's special it has less genetic material, it's more specialized. Doctors in medicine specialize or isolate themselves to one branch of medicine rather than take on the whole shebang. Same with species. They branch off from the parent kind. It happens suddenly, not over billions of years. It happens when God pulls the trigger so to speak.


To quote Nygdan : Absolutely false.




Because the moths were there in the beginning. The white moths didn't turn brown because the Industrial Revolution made smoke and soot and made the buildings go from light colored to dark colored. There were already two different kinds of moths flying around. But when the buildings started to get darker, the darker moths fared better than the light ones did.


Wrong, Any of the offspring of the white moths that were by mutation slightly darker done better, reproduced more and the species as a whole got darker.
Its nothing got to do with 2 seperate species.





Well, God didn't program evolution. He just made everything the way it is, and as I say he put the species within the kinds, which we might refer to as "micro-evolution" and some people mistake for evolution -- (evolution meaning new genetic material is formed and simple creatures become more and more complex over ions of time, and plants turn into fish turn into reptiles turn into birds turn into mammals turn into people.)


Why did god create micro-evolution then ? Did he get lazy after he finished making all the animals and turned them on auto ?I mean God is all powerful, Right?


[edit on 22-10-2005 by Merkeva]




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   


Everybody has webbed feet. Your friend may have them more than others, so it's a matter of degree.


Merkeva: Ah yes but what is the cause of this "degree" , I'll save some time and tell you its a gene which controls this, or do you deny the existance of genes? Why people differ in various traits ? Ah yes again its the gene.What causes these same gene's to give different people different traits?Mutation.

People have been born with 6 fingers on each hand, this is a mutation not a matter of degree.

Yes, a harmful mutation, an extra digit that gets in the way, doesn't work, and needs to be surgically removed. As I said, mutations are almost always harmful, never useful, and result in destruction or loss of DNA material, not new and additional material.

Merkeva:

Why did god create micro-evolution then ? Did he get lazy after he finished making all the animals and turned them on auto ?I mean God is all powerful, Right?

No, God didn't get lazy. If God was lazy he would not have created animals with a reservoir of many spare varieties packed within their genes. That's why those Hobbits were so small on that island, and the miniature elephants. God pulled the trigger, thought the little people would do well on this little island. That's also why all the animals fit on the ark -- because Noah took just the kinds, not all the species.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   


Yes, a harmful mutation, an extra digit that gets in the way, doesn't work, and needs to be surgically removed. As I said, mutations are almost always harmful, never useful, and result in destruction or loss of DNA material, not new and additional material.


Actually people with these extra digits tend not to have them removed, and find them very useful.A 6th digit wouldnt get in the way ,I don't see how it could(and getting a pair of gloves that fits don't count
)




No, God didn't get lazy. If God was lazy he would not have created animals with a reservoir of many spare varieties packed within their genes. That's why those Hobbits were so small on that island, and the miniature elephants. God pulled the trigger, thought the little people would do well on this little island.


So when did he tell you this ? Do you claim to know the mind of god?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Yes, a harmful mutation, an extra digit that gets in the way, doesn't work, and needs to be surgically removed. As I said, mutations are almost always harmful, never useful, and result in destruction or loss of DNA material, not new and additional material.


Sickle cell anemia is a very good version of a useful mutation, in a certain enviorment. Also parkinsons disease has mutated. The mutations causes symptoms to be less intense and they tend to not to start showing as early in life. Both are examples of useful mutations.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Merkeva and Silent -- I don't know about extra digits and Sickle Cell being beneficial, and I think that's debatable -- (not saying you're wrong).

Assuming a mutation is beneficial (and you would agree that at least most mutations are not beneficial, yes? Otherwise people would be standing in front of x-ray machines all the time to get more mutations) -- but assuming mutations are beneficial, this is still not a proof for evolution.

Why? Because the theory of evolution claims that brand new DNA and brand new genes are created by accident all by themselves. But your examples of mutations are talking here about mutations of already existing genes. If the genes already exist that's not evolution. We need an explanation of where the genes came from in the first place. Does evolution have an answer for that question?

I say, further, the already existing genes will be almost alwayls harmed if a mutation occurs. Material will be lost or damaged. Possibly in some freaky circumstances this might result in some kind of benefit, but usually it results in stillbirth or horrible deformity.

In any case, the genetic material to be mutated was already there. That's the whole point of this discussion on evolution, that any speciation occurs because the genetic material was already located within the genetic pool of the kind. There is a branching out and variation occurring SUDDENLY, not gradually with morphing; and further, the branching out will only go as far as the genetic programming that's already been put by the Creator into the genetic pool of the kind (or family or genus).

So the branching out within a kind (i.e. microevolution) is very limited when compared to what is claimed by evolutionists to occur across the entire spectrum of all life, that all life we see branched out from a single cell (which BTW they say became alive all by itself, another impossibility). Evolutionists claim one kind or family can morph itself into another kind or family, that essentially a turnip can turn itself into a bumblebee if given enough time.

We know from our own two eyes, from everything we know and observe in nature that's occurring now or ever has occurred, that this just is not the way it happens. All creatures are what they are, complete and functioning, except for creatures such as butterflys, which if caught in the two weeks of metamorphos in the pupa would appear incomplete or "messed up."

We know that variation occurs only within a kind and no farther. We know that like produces like, and life comes from life. This never, ever changes. Evolution is a religion, a belief based on theory that does not even agree with the known facts, a theory/dogmatic religion that tries to convince people that the simple rules of nature that are observed by anyone and everyone are the exception and not the rule. It's another Big Lie, that Hitler told us anyone would believe if told often enough and by enough "important" people.





[edit on 23-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Assuming a mutation is beneficial (and you would agree that at least most mutations are not beneficial, yes? Otherwise people would be standing in front of x-ray machines all the time to get more mutations)

This point has been answered on this thread already. Please review it.

Why? Because the theory of evolution claims that brand new DNA and brand new genes are created by accident all by themselves.

Not by accident. This point has been answered on this thread already. Please review it.

But your examples of mutations are talking here about mutations of already existing genes.

A mutation is something that changes.. therefore the cell pre-mutation ceases to exist.

We know from our own two eyes, from everything we know and observe in nature that's occurring now or ever has occurred, that this just is not the way it happens. All creatures are what they are, complete and functioning, except for creatures such as butterflys, which if caught in the two weeks of metamorphos in the pupa would appear incomplete or "messed up."

What you 'know' is not fact. For example.. I showed you evidence of a newly formed fly species earlier [you ignored it]. This had not been and 'already complete' species.. it never existed beforehand.

Evolution is a religion,

Wrong. It is a science. This point has been answered on this thread already. Please review it.

a belief based on theory that does not even agree with the known facts,

Incorrect. The known facts support it.

Most of the arguments you are using you have already used on this thread. You were given answers.. ignored them, changed the subject and now you're starting all over again. Did you not understand the answers you were given? No matter how many times you ask.. the facts will not change.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Riley -- Stop trying to kill this thread. It doesn't matter if anything has been discussed anywhere else. There is a discussion going on here. It's not for you to try to drive a stake through any discussion. If you don't like what's being said here you don't have to read it. Isn't there any place else you can go play?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- Stop trying to kill this thread. It doesn't matter if anything has been discussed anywhere else. There is a discussion going on here. Things do get discussed in several different threads here. It's not for you to try to drive a stake through any discussion.

There is no discussion. You demanded answers and evidence.. people went to great lengths to give them to you.. and now you are demanding EXACTLY THE SAME answers and evidence. Where is the discussion? You keep regurtiating the same arguments despite the fact that they have already been refuted. What is the point of forcing people to repeat themselves? The answers will not change.

Please review the thread and come up with something new.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Officer Riley -- Excuse me, but who made you the owner of ATS? Is this your thread? Are you a moderator? Who are you to decide on or enforce what constitutes a discussion and what does not? You are out of line.

I know you are an atheist and you hate creationism and you hate all my opinions, but I still have a right to express them on these boards. Nobody has to reply to what I say. They do so from choice.

The reason nobody replies to what you say because what you say is not provocative, not logical, and from what I've seen you just don't know what you're talking about. You think you can get people to agree with you by accusing them of deliberately posting false information (i.e. calling them a liar), and things like that. This is why I don't want to discourse with you and probably why others don't either.

Maybe if you'd just go and read up on some topic and get really familliar with it, you can then discuss it with someone on these threads without resorting to threats and bullying to get your way. Meantime, you have no right to come on and tell people they can't talk about what they are talking about.

And I reread my posts above and I don't see where I demanded anything at all in them. I'm just stating my position. So why are you accusing me of DEMANDING, DEMANDING, DEMANDING? Seems to me you are the one who is demanding -- demanding that I not write anything on this forum. And who are you to demand anything like that from anybody?

As to my "regurgitating" that is "forcing people to respond," is there some rule here at ATS that I don't understand that says if someone says something or "regurgitates" it as you say that people are obligated to respond? I certainly don't want to force anybody to respond to anything I say at all, and if that's what I'm doing then I gues I should stop posting on ATS rather than force people to write the same answers as you say. I'm not into holding a gun to anybody's head at all.

You are not a moderator and you are not the one who started this thread. You are completely out of line -- as usual. You need somebody to grab you by your big ears, drag you out to the woodshed and give you a good lickin' and make you stand in the corner.

Meantime, what are you, the thought police? You should see Mirthful Me about a job as a moderator. Then you can go around and bust in on people's discussions and close them down, maybe fine the person you don't agree with while you're at it.






[edit on 23-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Astronomer: "You said: Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community.

To understand why, it is important to remember that Behe's main argument is that in an irreducibly complex system, every part is vital to the system's overall operation."

How about if we go with the giraff? I claim the giraffe is irreducibly complex. If any part of it were changed the rest could not survive.

Let's start with the giraffe.

www.answersingenesis.org...

And who really came up with this "test" anyway? If we can find something that's "irreducibly complex" that will prove evolution is not correct?

But I can go for a discussion of something that's very complex and fearfully and wonderfully made, the giraffe.

I shall return.


[edit on 23-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I stopped reading that commentary at this point:



If the shortage of food drove the neck to change, would not the number of neck bones and joints be changeable also by such evolutionary processes? Of course the problem with this design would be a loss of flexibility, and would severely increase breakability if the giraffe received a blow to the head or neck.


The author could not be bothered to learn the first damn thing about giraffes - and that is that they evolved long necks in order to have better chances of mating. Male giraffes fight for females by striking their necks and heads at each other. This is why they have horns and large necks. It has nothing to do with reaching food on trees.

In light of this scientific fact, the rest of that article is baseless.

Zip



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Zip -- You should read it. It explains what an amazing piece of work the giraffe is, that if one part was not made so specially all the rest would not work, right down to the birth of a giraffe calf, which would be killed at birth. The mother cannot kneel or lay down and gives birth standing up, so the calf has a drop to the ground, a big drop. It also has a long neck that can break. But the birth happens in such a way that the calves land safely and are up and about right after birth. The giraffe's heart is created in an amazing way to pump the blood up 8 feet to the head and then keep the brain from exploding when the giraffe bends over to drink. It has special blood cells and capillaries to keep it from pooling blood in its legs and so that the oxygen gets distributed faster. The lungs are specially made also, because the long neck requires special lungs, deep veins.

You should read it. It's interesting.

Quite obviously Answers in Genesis does not believe evolution occurred either for the giraffe to reach the trees or for the giraffe to use is neck for mating. All animals are able to mate and they don't need long necks to do it. Likewise, for eating. The giraffe is however, according to the article, the lookout. The other animals are all tuned into the giraffe, because they know the giraffe has the info on when it's time to move on. So if the giraffe starts to move on, everyone else does also -- although there's not much that wants to mess with a giraffe.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Hmm, maybe I'll try a different approach here.

Why would an animal need to be a "lookout" for other animals, logically to warn them of danger, if (Gen 1:29-30) they existed in the Garden of Eden as herbivores, and had no natural enemies?

I will admit that giraffes have a keen sense of vision, but I will also say that they evolved as a complete animal - a system of systems, just like any other animal. Your commentary about this is a perfect example of a creature experiencing this. As one aspect of a creature evolves, so do other facilities evolve to support each other - for instance, as our ankles developed to help us run, so did our butts grow larger to help maintain momentum during the process of running, and our toes specialized to work to balance us better. During this time, our brains also grew larger to help us defend ourselves in other ways.

This is just one example of a complete system evolving together, and I haven't even mentioned how arms, hips, and et cetera factor into the equation because my Astros are winning again so I've gotta get back to them.

EDIT: Crap.

Zip

[edit on 10/23/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Zip -- Scripture says animals changed after the Garden of Eden. All the animals originally were herbivores. Also the humans ate only plants. But after the fall, the earth was cursed, and everyone was driven out of the Garden, and everything changed. So the giraffe is the lookout.

Did you read the article?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Yes, I did. The article goes into some depth about the physiology of giraffes...



Giraffe males fight for dominance over females by clubbing opponents with their massive heads and necks.This intrasexual combat is called “necking” through which larger-necked males gain the greatest access to estrous females and thus, have a greater contribution to the genetic makeup of the next generation.


Makes sense, eh? I'm gonna continue on in my new style of asking "why?" questions here:



The sparse fossil record ... gives some insight into the relative size of fossil giraffids (Samotherium) which show a leg length 83% that of the modern giraffe.The fossil records fail to show any parallel increase in neck length in relation to other body parts.


If giraffes were simply meant to be tall so that they could be "lookouts," as you put it, then why didn't their legs and torsos grow proportionally to further extend their height? Why did only their necks grow over millions and millions of years, according to the fossil record?

See, I usually try to avoid fighting arguments in this manner - asking "why is **** like **** then?" or "if that's the case then why is ****?" or whatever. It's not a good way to argue, but I'm feeling lazy tonight.



The bull determines a female's time of estrus by taking a sample of urine on his tongue which signals if she is ready to mate (Stevens, 1993). Also, females allow themselves to be urine tested more frequently by larger males. Therefore, males with the largest neck size will mate most often.


Zip



[edit on 10/23/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Yes, I did. The article goes into some depth about the physiology of giraffes...



Giraffe males fight for dominance over females by clubbing opponents with their massive heads and necks.This intrasexual combat is called “necking” through which larger-necked males gain the greatest access to estrous females and thus, have a greater contribution to the genetic makeup of the next generation.


Makes sense, eh? I'm gonna continue on in my new style of asking "why?" questions here:



The sparse fossil record ... gives some insight into the relative size of fossil giraffids (Samotherium) which show a leg length 83% that of the modern giraffe.The fossil records fail to show any parallel increase in neck length in relation to other body parts.


If giraffes were simply meant to be tall so that they could be "lookouts," as you put it, then why didn't their legs and torsos grow proportionally to further extend their height? Why did only their necks grow over millions and millions of years, according to the fossil record?

[edit on 10/23/2005 by Zipdot]


The reason for the discussion on the giraffe was Astronomer's invitation to discuss irreducible complexity. Do all the parts of the giraffe "need each other" in order to survive? In other words, there's more than just large necks here to consider. There's the special lungs, birthing process, special blood cells, arteries, special heart for a creature like the giraffe to be able to live, and if any of these things were to change the creature could not survive.

I don't believe in evolution AT ALL. I guess you know that. So I'm wondering why you speculate with me how or why the neck evolved, when I don't believe it did. Rather, God made the giraffe the way He did for His own reasons of which we can only speculate. But He did an awesome job in doing so.

Hopefully Astronomer will come on some time and give his opinion as to the irreducible complexity of the giraffe's makeup.

I'm thinking this subject may be too difficult to communicate with anyone about. I truly believe God created the world and everything in it in six days just like Scripture said. I mean, I believe this. I feel like I can convince others of this also because to me it's so plain and obvious. So that's why I'm on this forum, to share this understanding and knowledge that I have.

People do have opinions and it's okay to have them, yes? I think I could convince people Creationism is true if I were allowed to proceed in a discussion to the end, and not get sidetracked. If I were to engage in a discussion with someone who was willing to take it to the end, I believe I could convince them that Creationism is true.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The reason for the discussion on the giraffe was Astronomer's invitation to discuss irreducible complexity. Do all the parts of the giraffe "need each other" in order to survive? In other words, there's more than just large necks here to consider. There's the special lungs, birthing process, special blood cells, arteries, special heart for a creature like the giraffe to be able to live, and if any of these things were to change the creature could not survive.


I realize that, and just because something dies if you violently rip its heart out, that does not disprove evolution or prove "intelligent design." As I said earlier, evolution easily accounts for the overall changes of a creature as a SYSTEM. You don't have to "believe in evolution" to accept this.


Originally posted by resistance
I don't believe in evolution AT ALL. I guess you know that. So I'm wondering why you speculate with me how or why the neck evolved, when I don't believe it did. Rather, God made the giraffe the way He did for His own reasons of which we can only speculate. But He did an awesome job in doing so.


The article you linked to argued that giraffes did not evolve long necks to reach trees, and I was simply saying "I agree, giraffes evolved long necks due to reproductive selection pressures in their species - females prefer larger males."


Originally posted by resistance
I'm thinking this subject may be too difficult to communicate with anyone about. I truly believe God created the world and everything in it in six days just like Scripture said. I mean, I believe this. I feel like I can convince others of this also because to me it's so plain and obvious. So that's why I'm on this forum, to share this understanding and knowledge that I have.


We are all welcome here to discuss topics. The general area of discussion in this forum relates to the open conspiracy surrounding Judeo-Christian supporters who are attempting to replace evolutionary science in America's classrooms with "intelligent design" hypotheses. You have come to the right place to discuss this conspiracy because apparently you are a part of it.


Originally posted by resistance
People do have opinions and it's okay to have them, yes? I think I could convince people Creationism is true if I were allowed to proceed in a discussion to the end, and not get sidetracked. If I were to engage in a discussion with someone who was willing to take it to the end, I believe I could convince them that Creationism is true.


You are welcome to share your opinions, but keep in mind the other religious discussion forums here at ATS and BTS - conspiracies in religions and faith, spirituality, and theology. Open evangelism may be better suited to another one of these forums.

Zip



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Zip -- Your post is kinda the straw that broke the giraffe's back. I'm outa here.
I'm tired of having my posts ripped apart word by word with nobody understanding the gist of what I'm saying. The point about the heart is not that the giraffe would die without its heart. Any creature would be dead without its heart. The point of the article is that the giraffe needs a special kind of heart to survive.

I have been posting on a whole bunch of threads here -- Creationism, Moon Conspiracy, NASA, The Crappy Schools, Religion, Aliens, Freemasonry, NWO, and probably several others I haven't mentioned. I know I was wrong about two things -- the temperature on the moon and another thing I won't say. Somebody has to be a very well-read person to have enough knowledge to juggle all those balls. Quite often I'd be the only person arguing my point of view and I could still hold my own no problem. I could go back and pull out threads I was posting on and I'll betcha people would be right back posting on them again if I did.

And from years of writing and trying to persuade I'm pretty good at getting my point across in a few words. I don't like to blather, but to get to the point and try to explain myself very clearly. People don't have time to read a lot of blather, and I really, really want to convince people of things I care about.

It just seems like people want to rip what I say apart, not even try to see the underlying message I'm trying to get across. Then for all the hours and hours of time and the careful posts I've put up here I have been fined and fined and fined some more.

I have had my own newspaper, I'm a reader and a thinker, and I can write circles around most people. So why am I being abused? Why can't anyone understand what I'm saying?

You and I may as well be talking Chinese and French to each other.

I'm outa here.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Another victory for logic and common sense.

Ta ta resistance. This board wont be the same without you...



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Officer Riley -- Excuse me, but who made you the owner of ATS? Is this your thread? Are you a moderator? Who are you to decide on or enforce what constitutes a discussion and what does not? You are out of line.

No. I only voiced my irritation at your continued refusal to accept the answers you are given [I even tried to be polite about it at first]. I have no wish to be a moderator.. though I do not ignore it when people post silly things and claim they are posting scientific fact.

I know you are an atheist and you hate creationism and you hate all my opinions,

I haven't read ALL your opinions so I couldn't say.. but I do hate ignorance. Some believe that their god created the universe and everything unravelled from there.. I am fine with that concept however there is no science that supports it.



Resistance.. What the hell is this crap?!:


You need somebody to grab you by your big ears, drag you out to the woodshed and give you a good lickin' and make you stand in the corner.


In future please DO NOT threaten me or infer physical violence.. I have not done that to you and will not tolerate it being done to me.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join