ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a rabbit. The proof I have been looking for.

Nick

Sure, you've just found evidence for something called EVOLUTION .

 

[Phaycops]

Nick,
Is it really too much to ask that you make some kind of good-faith effort to understand just a little bit of what we're saying?

 

[delphi_ote]

Yes, I know the rest of the page was anti-creationist, I was referring to the table only.

Once again you lie. Once again you tell us what we believe. Once again you speak but refuse to listen. Stop telling us about the ultimate authority of the Bible when you've so obviously missed the point, hypocrite.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and selfcontrol.

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says."

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nick --- I'm just longing to know how indisputable evidence of intermediate forms (those things you said didn't exist, remember? 'cos you read it in a fundie tract?) as predicted in Darwin's Origin Of Species are "the proof you've been looking for". Do have the goodness to let me know.

 

[Phaycops]

Nick, what part of "animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are of different species" do you not understand? I don't give a bunny's hinie if they are both rabbits, the are different species! Get it?

 

[Correa Neto]

If all rabbits are of the same kind, than horses and zebras are also...
All ants are of the same kind?
All flys are of the same kind?
All crocodiles are of the same kind?
All frogs are of the same kind?
All lizzards are of the same kind?
All monkeys are of the same kind?

Do you acknoweledge that humans are failible, and since you are human, your interpretations may be flawed?

Thus you might be wrong regarding rabbits, kinds, canopy, fountains of the deep, where the global flood water went to, mountains generated by the receeding global flood waters, the Qu'ran, creationism, fauna and flora distribution, age of the Earth, etc.?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, looking back, I think delphi_ote called it right --- Nick was trying to be sarcastic, and failing.

Nick, you haven't asked us for the proof of the theory of evolution. The proof would lie mainly in the following subjects, all of which confirm the predictions made by the theory of evolution:

(i) genetics
(ii) paeleontology and geology
(iii) zoology and comparative morphology
(iv) embryology
(vi) microbiology and epidemiology
(vii) biogeography
(viii) mathematics, engineering, and computer science

Does anyone have anything I should add to that little list?

 

[AOK Tiger]

DR A,

I would definitely include Biology !

If we are talking about flood and YE Creationism though you can virtually add in EVERY other science..

Astronomy
Cosmology
Seismology
Archaeology
Chemistry
Climatology
Ecology
Entomology
Hydrodynamics
Lithology
Meteorology
Microbiology
Oceanography
Physics
Thermodynamics
Vulcanology
Scientology

Just to name a few more !

 

[Darat]

Evolutionary developmental biology

 

[Dr Adequate]

Darat --- cheers.

Let's make that

(iv) Embryology and developmental biology

It's the same sort of evidence isn't it?

AT --- Well, good gracious, what a lot of sciences contradict YEC. I wonder why that is. I think Nick's got enough on his plate right now. Er --- "Scientology"? You thought you could slip that in without anyone noticing?

 

[delphi_ote]

I'd add molecular biology. Genetics provides a theoretical framework to explain our observations about mutation and inheritance, but molecular biology gives us the precise chemical mechanics that give rise to these phenomina.

Thermodynamics was a good choice, Aussie. In the same theme, I'd add information/coding theory (true that they're covered under math/communication system engineering... but mentioning some specifics can't hurt.) All the misconceptions about the Second Law of thermodynamics and information loss/transmission are so blatantly contradicted in the first chapters of elementary texts on these subjects.

 

[H3LL]

28 sciences (quick count)...Wow!

Instead of all that study, hard work and evidence collecting all I really need are the first few chapters of a 2000 year old, badly translated story that says they are all wrong.



I suppose that if I couldn't read, and will never have the opportunity to learn to read and my whole (short) life is to be the servant of my masters and for me and my family to stay in our alloted place in society, the old book read to me each Sunday is enough to explain everything and it certainly suits my masters.

That was good enough for hundreds of years. Why not now?

 

[H3LL]

I'd like to add anthropology to the list, as it's a big one that gets under YEC's skin for some reason.


If anyone wants to extend the list with specific sciences by a few score there is a nice list here:

Phrontistery

Some are a bit wacky and not all strictly sciences and it includes the woo-woo. As they say:

This list defines over 600 sciences, arts and studies of various degrees of respectability and rarity, ranging from the common and esteemed (chemistry) to the obscure and quirky (peristerophily).

I saw over a dozen proper sciences wiped out by YEC before I got to 'B'.

Personally I think I have found my calling and will consider a Phd. in arctophily.

Nick will tell us what it means when he reads the list and he doesn't even have to read further than the 'A's.

A less diverse list and more science specific is here:

laborlawtalk.com

It contains some good definitions about science too.

 

[Jocce]

Once again, animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are different species, regardless of what "kind" of animal they appear to be (I'm sure the biologists here are cringing at this gross oversimplification, but I feel it is warranted to keep the debate on-track). The two rabbits that cannot produce viable offspring are different species. Get it? Regardless of the fact that they all look and act like rabbits. Lions and tigers cannot produce fertile offspring; norway rats and roof rats cannot produce fertile offspring; horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring; eastern and western meadowlarks and skunks cannot produce fertile offspring.....

And, being a bird watcher, I have to add the roughly 8-9000 different bird SPECIES on the earth.

 

[H3LL]

And, being a bird watcher, I have to add the roughly 8-9000 different bird SPECIES on the earth.

It's a good job Noah and co. dropped off the Secretary Bird in Africa before carrying all those snakes to Australia.

Actual picture drawn by Noah.
Note: Snake pictured extinct from being eaten.





I'll stop trying not to be invisible for now. Sorry for all the posts.

 

[Ashles]

Uh, Nick, did you read the rest of that page?

Yes, I know the rest of the page was anti-creationist, I was referring to the table only.

So is this basically an admission that you only pay attention to pro-YE text, and just ignore anything that contradicts it?

Then what's the point of asking us questions, or trying to answer our questions?

Do you listen to scientific sites or books for information on other matters? Or do you not trust them to teach you anything?
How would you learn what a diode is for, or how a stalactite forms, or how fast light travels, or how a television works, or anything else?
Do you trust scientific sources for some things, but not anything which contradicts your personal beliefs?

Or are you just not interested in learning anything at all to do with the world around you?
You're happy to sit in your home, warmed by gas or electricity, fed by scientific farming methods, communicating electronically with people around the world, with a lifespan extended by scientific medical knowledge... but you still won't believe anything science tells you?

How do you decide which bits to believe and which to ignore? I'm genuinely curious?

With regard to the YE and flood theories, As I said earlier, if you are going to constantly end up saying "God did it" as an answer to all these questions, then what is the point of discussing it?
And believe us, any debate about these issues will ultimately have to end up as either you saying that "God just did it", or agreeing that the earth cannot possibly by 6.000 yeears old.

All scientific evidence is completely at odds with the YE theories. All information otherwise provided by sites like AiG are either mistaken, quoting facts taken out of context or using actual deliberate misinformation.

Here's my final question for you Nick (as you appear to be ignoring most of my previous ones).

Pretend (just pretend for a second) that the Earth really is as old as we claim.
Pretend that evolution acts exactly as we claim, and that macro-evolution is real.
What would you expect to find? What things about the earth would you expect to see? What properties of geology would you expect to find?
What things would you not expect to see?

What have you ever observed in real life or learned about (from any source other than an actively pro-creationist one) that is at odds with any of this?

 

[Jocce]

It's a good job Noah and co. dropped off the Secretary Bird in Africa before carrying all those snakes to Australia.

Well, it's a little known fact that had he dropped the snakes off first there would have been 14000 bird species. Now, 6000 of the original birdspecies dissapeared as snacks for the 6000 snake species on that journey.

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh no! Noah's picture portrays this bird's partner flying off in another direction. How will they mate?

Are you sure the bird AND snake aren't extinct?

 

[delphi_ote]

I'd like to add anthropology to the list, as it's a big one that gets under YEC's skin for some reason.

I've got a couple more fields that aren't "science," perse:

History: other primary sources from the time contradict claims the bible makes to establish the history it lays out.

Comparative religion/mythology: Hundreds of similiar stories exist in other cultures. Why should we decide THIS is the correct version of history? Especially when we can trace some of the stories back to other sources which were clearly intentionally just fables and philosophical discussion. (Job is known to be a Zorastrian myth the Pharisees plopped into the Bible because it's a good lesson.)

Linguistics/Cultural Studies: The layout and evolution of languages/cultures in the Bible is just dead wrong. The Babel myth is brazenly contradicted by studies of the evolution/travel of langauges, and denies the existence of whole peoples and cultures!

In fact, if you sit down and think critically within the context of almost any field, you're eventually going to butt up against evidence that YEC is immature hogwash.

Side note: my mom believes this crap and gave me a YEC book with all kinds of BS science hurting my brain. I decided to look up the author, who had a "PhD" but was hiding - I mean - never bothered to mention his field. Lo and behold he was a hydraulics engineer... writing a "text book" about biology/astrophysics/quantum mechanics!

 

[Dr Adequate]

There are three ways in which the sciences bear on the dispute.

First, there are sciences such as geology and genetics which prove evolution. Naturally all these sciences, by virtue of this fact , prove YEC to be wrong as well.

Second, there are sciences such as archaeology and linguistics which prove YEC wrong but don't particularly prove the theory of evolution.

Third, there are sciences such as thermodynamics which prove YEC anti-scientific propaganda wrong, but which can have no bearing on either evolution or YEC.

Now as we skeptics have to point out from time to time, evolution/YEC is a false dichotomy. So the second and third classes don't tend to prove the theory of evolution. The second disproves YEC and the third just shows what a bunch of jokers YECs are.

I understood Nick to be asking for proof of the theory of evolution. We don't get to win by default, so I thought I'd list some sciences that fall into the first category.

Mind you, Nick's gone awfully quiet lately.

Nick...?