It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:32 AM
I am a "new player" on this board, but even still I feel a need to summarize points I have made that have gone unrefuted.

I fail to see how you being incapable of understanding evolution and scientific reasoning, then later reverting to a more infantile view of the universe, adds weight to your argument. Indeed, the defining mark of a creationist: ignorance, usually followed by fundamentalism.

This, to be honest, seems to be becoming more noticeable every day; that is, creationists are typically ignorant of biology and history; they make mistakes constantly that a properly educated person wouldn't make.

The major problem with biblical, or otherwise supernatural, cataclysm hypotheses is that there are many animals that were alive, but now are not, that would most likely survive if somehow brought back; conversely, many modern animals are similar enough to ancient animals that they would not have survived a catastrophe formidable enough to have taken out the ancient animals.

Indeed, my first point is given a perfect example by the idea that a flood wiped out the dinosaurs, explaining why we do not walk among them (which in fact we do, in the form of birds).

There is much more to the prehistoric world than dinosaurs. Icthyosaurs, Nothosaurs, Pterosaurs, Trilobites, Ammonites, Belemnites, Orthocones, Eurypterids, Pliosaurs, Phytosaurs, Plesiosaurs, Tribrachidia, etcetera were all capable of surviving a rise in sea level, regardless of depth. Furthermore, many of those animals are similar to modern animals. A cataclysm that would have wiped those out would have with 100% certainly taken our familiar animals with it.

Futhermore, few plants can survive being salted. A mega flood would have destroyed them, leaving Noah and his gang with no food, except for each other of course.

Which brings me to another point. The whole Noah story, assuming one believes it indeed flooded the entire planet, is completely impossible.

1) Noah could not possibly have kept two of every animal alive. The boat would have to be several thousand feet long and contain multiple cages and aquaria complete with modern life support equipment. Freshwater animals, with a few exceptions, cannot survive being salted, so the boat would need to be capable of keeping them alive for extended periods.

2) Noah could not possibly have gathered every animal species alive today. To do so he would have needed to travel to the Americas and every other place where animals exist, and if I remember correctly the Americas weren't even mentioned in genesis let alone traveled to.

3) Noah could not possibly have kept the animals from eating each other. Face it, people; if an animal has sharp teeth and is clearly built to track other animals down and kill them, it is not, nor was it, a plant eater. They kill to live; to even hypothesize that these animals are "sinning" and "acting against the will of God" is arrogance to the highest degree, and frankly, disgusting and pathetic.

4) Two, or even a group, is not enough. Every sexually reproducing animal alive today has a minimum population, without which the gene pool will degenerate until extinction. Two perfect examples are the Giant Panda and the Cheetah. However, in evolutionary theory, entire populations experience a gradual change, which keeps them viable; just to put down that miserable argument before it surfaces.

Continued. That's right; you're not off the hook yet!

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:42 AM
reply to post by SlyCM (work)

i agree with you ...sly....but creationists will always, always fall back on "it was god's design" and "you have to have faith" ...and that, my friend, ends the discussion for them. you can't reason religious belief, but i applaud you trying. there is no logic in religion, therefore, no scientific debate.

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:04 AM

They are not lost, they simply are unexpressed.

"we see only loss, never gain"

An argument brought up despite repeated debunking is the idea that evolution is impossible because all we see is loss.

Untrue. Evolution only produces more successful forms, since if they were less successful they would be outcompeted by their ancestors.

1) Snakes. Snakes have complex musculature and are nearly hyper-efficient at locomotion. They can go fast, climb trees, and swim, being formidable in every environment they decide to "take". Indeed, they often predate upon their "superiors", the lizards, with little reciprocation. They often produce powerful venom with proteins so complex it has humbled man's best efforts to reproduce them. They are truly a marvel of evolution; indeed, the idea that they are "sinful" and "cast upon the ground" signifies appalling disrespect and ignorance.

2) Cave fish, and others that inhabit environments in which vision is useless. These animals have lost their eyes, but they have gained a hyper-efficient pressure-sensory system, called the lateral line. They are capable of competing with similar eyed realtives in aquaria, and are not handicapped in the least.

For a more extreme example, consider electric eels and catfish. These animals are nearly blind, but their lateral line, and a new sense, electroreception, renders them formidable competitors. Electric freshwater fish are astounding creatures and dominate their particular habitat with a weapon unfathomable to their competition: electric shocks, powerful enough bring down a large mammal.

3) Moray eels. I would be completely unsurprised if I was informed that these creatures are pound-for-pound the mightiest vertebrate on Earth. They have lost all their fins except for the dorsal, caudal, and anal, and are nearly blind. In return, they have gained a strong sense of smell, and a second set of jaws, believe it or not. The pharyngeal jaws.

Loss is an illusion in 99% of cases, and even if it weren't evolutionary theory would not be in jeopardy because we do not "rule" that the transformation be to a form more complex.

Next Point: since I cannot find this quote.
God is impotent. This may seem unscientific since it is more philosophical: bear with me.

God cannot perform a task as mindless as proving his own existance, which I, or a speck of dust, can do rather easily; therefore, I can only conclude that if God exists, that I am more powerful than him. Of course, this argument could be refuted by proving the existance of God, which has not been done, nor, if current trends continue, ever will be.

So, because my typing enthusiasm is running thin, I can only conclude that
1) If the Flood is impossible, YEC is impossible since I cannot have a Trilobite in my fish tank, ie., if the Flood was all that stood between them and surviving to modern days they would certainly have made the leap, and
2) YEC is impossible because there is no being mighty enough to accomplish it.

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:07 AM

you can't reason religious belief, but i applaud you trying.

Don't worry, I "felt like doing it". I love to brag about how cool animals are anyway.
Also I felt the need to write a semi-coherent script, possibly so that it could be linked to later.

it does actually serve a purpose, for me that is. If I get more "Satan did it" or "Jesus is gonna kill you", or even simple negligence, I will know not to waste a second of more time on these people.

Final point being, a simple cut-and-paste:

Think about it.

I supposed you did not visit the link I posted, on Conway's Game of Life? With predetermined environmental characteristics (the known laws of physics) chance can design, and mutation - indeed, mistake - can help as well as harm.

Another notable occurance is "virtual life" whose developer I have forgotten (thogh trolling wikipedia may yield an answer), in which a single reproducing computer code was written, the simplest the author could imagine (40 bytes), and simply left alone. ...

Here is another similar experiment performed years after.

Summary: chance can design, mistake can be helpful.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 10:32 PM
someone didn't do any reasurch. (first rule of science)

1. Noah didn't gather two of every animal. he gathered the "noble animals" of the area he lived in.

2. The entire world wasn't flooded. Only the 'Known World' which at that time would have been a much easier task. oh, wait the salt thing. think Silt not salt. with a new layer of soil and some stored food for a year it should be believable.

3. If God proved his existence to you, you would KNOW He exists, He wants you to BELIEVE.

and remember, "There is no such thing as Impossible." Albert Einstein.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:43 AM
Actually I did do a little bit, I often (though not in ATS) argue a "figurative" reading of the bible, and therefore suggest that "the whole world, from Noah's point of view, could have flooded". However, YEC does require a global catastrophe of some sort in order to explain why I cannot have a pterosaur for a pet; and furthermore, most YECists argue for a literal reading of the bible.

Finally, God has not proved His existence to me, or to anyone. They can claim all they want, but unless they have evidence it is meaningless.

new topics

top topics

log in