artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 At least we are in agreement on something Well, that's a relief. lol. So we have to take a look at all the evidence and see which theory fits in all the evidence better. All evidence is subject to interpretation. QUOTE But for interests sake what IS the evidence that everythign moved as slowly as it now does. How could they possibly tell? Will get to later. Why later? QUOTE You asserted that many subspecies could not form all the species around today in thousands of years. I showed you what they've done with dogs in the last thousand or so. So, yes, the ark could contain all of the animals around today - just two babies of each major species required. The dog analogy is flawed though. To create a new breed, you take two different types of dogs and mate them. Even if Noah had two different breeds of dog, the variation would not be like it is today, because you are limited to breeding only two types of dogs, and how could they fan out all over the world so quick?QUOTE There is so much information for variation within a single dna molecule - enough to fill a city library. Are you forgetting so soon? The canines all DID come from one type a long time ago. We're just debating the time factor here. How long could it take? We've seen hundreds of variations in hundreds of years. How many variations do you think there are? Probably hundreds of each and creationists say it could have thousands of years. No problem for this at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 re mtdna A recent report in Science's 'research new' suggest Eve may have lived around 6500 years ago. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 I never said they made them up, or that they made them up because they were by water. I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth. Well if they didn't make them up, then the stories must have been true! Lol. Which is it? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. One way the story spread was by people telling it and it was passed along. One example from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/60...40/flood20.htm: I totally agree that the way a story spreads is by people telling it and passing it along. But if it's not true, then the originators of the story must have made it up. But you're saying that you're not saying that. So what are you saying? You're story about Dr. Gajdusek is no surprise to a creationist. HAving similar legends of origins or songs or engineering knowledge (pyramids) is no surprise at all - even if the people are separated by oceans. Are you familiar with the story of the Tower of Babel? That story explains that God separated the peoples and scattered them around the earth. Of course, certain familiarities between peoples would be passed down through the generations. So much for a 'great mystery'. Regarding the population of today being in-line with reproduction beginning 6000 years ago with 8 people. (even with black plague, inquisition, etc deaths) QUOTE It's easily still very workable even with those deaths. One word: evidence. LOL. The population of the earth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 Nice response. You didn't even read it, did you? And what is "Ah, good old talk origins. Haven't been to that site in awhile!" supposed to mean? I did read it. I read it many years ago. I have a feeling you did not read it. What is their explanation? That those trees had grown in the position they were found. And they provide long involved quotes from a guy from the 1800's. Well, surprise! Creationists don't dismiss that they grew there! In fact, that is not the problem at all! (That's the problem with those who frequent Talk Origins - they figure if Talk Origins has an answer then it must be a good one) Well, it's a poor answer. So the trees stood there for millions of years while having layers of sediment deposited quickly and drying slowly, but they didn't rot. Gimme a break. Better answer. The trees were quickly covered by sediment, which separated into layers then dried rather quickly before the tree had a chance to rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 And what is "Ah, good old talk origins. Haven't been to that site in awhile!" supposed to mean? Sorry I forgot to respond to this. I debated evolutionists for more than 2 years. They frequently found 'answers' here on this site. Talk Origins is the athiest's bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 No, I never said that. But if they happened in the 19th or 20th century, then they are much easier to explain. Well of course. They wouldn't call them anomolies would they. I'll try to find you a site that explains all these anomalies in detail if I get a chance today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 But it doesn't show that they were quickly fossilized. It shows they were buried very quickly. People get buried alive all the time in mudslides and avalanches, but they don't fossilize quickly, do they? They were covered by sediment so they couldn't get eated, you're right. But it still would take much, much longer to fossilize. So what keeps them from rotting then? I don't think people covered in avalanches fossilize at all. Wouldn't they just freeze? Mudslides? I don't know. I would think they'd just decay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/science/12GENO.html More on the difference between humans and animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 Well, that's a relief. lol. So we have to take a look at all the evidence and see which theory fits in all the evidence better. All evidence is subject to interpretation. Again, I agree. We are on a roll here. Why later? Didn't have time to look up the info, sorry. There is so much information for variation within a single dna molecule - enough to fill a city library. Are you forgetting so soon? The canines all DID come from one type a long time ago. We're just debating the time factor here. How long could it take? We've seen hundreds of variations in hundreds of years. How many variations do you think there are? Probably hundreds of each and creationists say it could have thousands of years. No problem for this at all. You can't relate breeding dogs to natural variation. When you breed dogs, you put together thw two dogs of different subspecies and let them "go at it." When it happens naturally, it could take much, much longer to get all the variations we have today, not including breeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 re mtdna A recent report in Science's 'research new' suggest Eve may have lived around 6500 years ago. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp Uhhhhhhh, no. This was published in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Its right under the title. They used a quote from Science, but looking at it, it was obviously tailored to fit their needs. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from Scientific America. I suggest you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts