Age of the Earth 2

[Guest mscoville]

Yo,

Atheist, now you're just being insulting. Your motives drip out more and more. "I'm just here to educate." you say. A greater lie was never spoken. I think you're here looking for Christ. I hope you realize it will take more than experiments to find him. It takes submission to him.

I don't remember where the question was last posted so I'll just ask what you thought of Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box". I haven't read it yet. Does it seem credible?

~ Martin

[Guest mscoville]

Is there any evidence for Christ's resurrection you find at least compelling?

[artsylady]

Yes, I am - it's remarkable how intelligent gorillas can be, given that we're about 7 million years seperated from them.

I disagree that they are close to human intelligence. Strongly disagree but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The point I was making is that there's not as big a gap as people make out. Other animals do use tools, have social relationships, do use language etc - not in as complex or intricate a way as we do, but nonetheless.

If this Koko decided to start teaching her children the same language you might convince me of something. Truth is Koko probably signs to get what she wants - bananas, treats, her doll, etc. She'd probably be much happier with her friends hanging out in the jungle looking for bugs or whatever they do.

QUOTE 

No, no, no. Why haven't gorillas evolved? Your point was that gorillas are almost as intelligent as humans (which I don't buy) but why haven't they evolved in intellignce?

The simple answer is, because there was not the selection pressure to do so. That is, the need for them to become more intelligent given their way of life did not sufficiently counteract the evolutionary cost in terms of additional materials and resources, especially in childhood rearing, to make them more intelligent.

Extinction is not enough pressure? Hmmm.

Humans could have easily survived without skyscrapers, transit, computers, cell phones etc, etc etc. We are just created differently.

I am really shocked that you don't see a major intelligence difference here. Surely you must but you are choosing to deny it.

QUOTE 

No, I asked if apes or gorillas have ever invented anything. Have they? And since you want to talk about their tools, go for it. Let's hear it.

Well, they crack nuts with rocks, and also use materials to build dens in trees.

They crack nuts with rocks? What's that got to do with anything? What materials do they use to build with?

[Guest mscoville]

Otters do that too, I guess they're ready for the SATs.

~M

[artsylady]

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf105/sf105p10.htm

On fossil graveyards. This is not a creationist site, but if you want to expand your view on science and origins, it's a good one to browse through. It is full of scientific anomalies. There are many things that just don't fit with the evolutionary theory. Fossil graveyards are found all over the place. Also check out Agate Springs in Nebraska, Geiseltal in Germany, Siberia, Alaska - there are hundreds of them and they are not in any particular order.

[artsylady]

Otters do that too, I guess they're ready for the SATs.

And beavers too! But they're not our relatives. Then again, parrots can talk and communicate like humans, but ooops, they're not as close to us as apes. And then again, our milk chemistry is closer to that of a goat than it is to any apes, but ooops, they're not our close relatives either! This evolution stuff is confusing!

[artsylady]

Well you just said that his sons and grandsons were likely real people.

No, I didn't say this, sorry if I gave you this impression.

So these names were just made up and then used by real people?

[artsylady]

About 97% of freshwater fish cannot survive in any form of salt water. That means that, only 2-3% of freshwater fish could even theoretically survive a flood.

Well, it would have been diluted at any rate. You'd be surprised what freshwater fish can survive. I'm having a horrible problem with my acquarium right now. Thought I'd be creative and add some fake plants from the dollar store. Turns out these plants were causing lovely rust spots on the aquarium - I thought it was algae! lol. Anyway, all three fish are still living after about a month. If they can survive rust I think they can survive a bit of salt.

The flood took place 4000 years ago, according to Christian mythology. That means that, within the last 4000 years, almost all freshwater fish species have evolved from only a few species. This rate of evolution is, as any evolutionist will tell you, completely impossible.

You breed a pitbull and a doberman and you've got a new 'species'. A new species can be created quite fast. Take that figure for any species. And combine it with adaptational changes and it's not a problem.

QUOTE 

layers of sediment? fossils of dead animals? mountains forming, canyon formation? major changes to the earth's surface?

Which of these have been dated to 4000 years ago? The grand canyon for example has layers dating from 1700 million years ago to near present - which of these layers was created by the great flood? They all contain fossils...

The dating methods are out of whack. Have scientists been wrong before?

Also, how is mountain formation a prediction of the great flood?

\

Simply major changes to the surface of the earth.

QUOTE 

That's no surprise. And making jewellery has NOTHING to do with survival. 

Agreed, it's simply a sign of culture, which is what you wanted right?

Yes, it fits with my theory but the dating is still a problem. How do they date sand? This is what you proposed. I don't believe the jewellery is that old so why would i go looking to find out how they did it. That's your point if you still want to prove it.

[Bread_of_Life]

artsylady

Well, it would have been diluted at any rate.

Not by a great deal actually.

Anyway, all three fish are still living after about a month. If they can survive rust I think they can survive a bit of salt.

I think you'd probably be surprised then, by how susceptable freshwater fish can be to saline. Your analogy with rust is not too useful, since the rusting process will actually have purified the water of any remaining salt, rather than added to it.

You breed a pitbull and a doberman and you've got a new 'species'

No, you don't. You get a new breed - actually, more likely, you get a mongrel that isn't itself viable. You certainly don't get a species.

A new species can be created quite fast. Take that figure for any species. And combine it with adaptational changes and it's not a problem.

I think you've underestimated what species are, and just how much genetic change must occur to create them. I also think you've underestimated just how different species are from each other within a genus.

You've also underestimated how many generations it takes for genetic change to occur. Mutation rates are as low as 1 in 100 million in some parts of the genome, and only as high as 1 in a million in others. Even a fixed change of a few percent can take hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.

In your model, we have a new species appearing pretty much every generation of animal for 4000 years per animal on the ark. This is totally unfeasible.

The dating methods are out of whack. Have scientists been wrong before?

It's easy to say - but then, everything is easy to say. I can say "the sky is green". It's really easy, I can even say it as I type it. All I need is vocal chords and some hand eye coordination.

It's much harder to prove it. I've posted up several threads on dating methods - and I'd be happy to hear responses. In fact, this is just such a thread - you might even want to go an read the very first post, and comment on it.

How do they date sand? This is what you proposed.

No idea - you've have to ask them.

So these names were just made up and then used by real people?

They may have been made up - but they could also have been taken from names of regional tribes, or even stories about tribes further afield.

And beavers too! But they're not our relatives.

actually, they are - all animals are.

Then again, parrots can talk and communicate like humans, but ooops, they're not as close to us as apes.

Whales and dolphins communicate with each other and form complex social groups with heirarchy, they're not as close to us as apes either. What of it?

And then again, our milk chemistry is closer to that of a goat than it is to any apes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...5&dopt=Abstract

Not so.

Also, here is a comparison of vitamin contents in goat, cow and human milk:

http://www.saanendoah.com/compare.html

and here is a comparison of Great Ape, human, sheep, rat and pig milk in amino acid content:

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID01E/uid01e1j.htm

On fossil graveyards. This is not a creationist site, but if you want to expand your view on science and origins, it's a good one to browse through. It is full of scientific anomalies. There are many things that just don't fit with the evolutionary theory. Fossil graveyards are found all over the place.

What's the problem with fossil graveyards (esp. the Karoo Formation) and evolution? There are still ways of dating these fossils, and they do actually date to the dates we expect...

In other words, fossils are not always found in strata - one above another. However, that isn't what we mean by "order" - what we actually mean is chronological order - it's just that when they are found in strata, one on top another, the order is more striking.

Extinction is not enough pressure? Hmmm.

yes, it's a lot of pressure. But it's a very modern pressure, created by human technology.

Evolution can only work so fast - it is limited by the rate of adaptional change thrown up by mutation and sexual recombination. As we have found out, that change can be pretty slow - in fact, it can take ten and hundreds of thousands of years - hundreds and thousands of generations.

The pressure created by human deforestation and hunting hasn't been around for that long, when you consider these timescales.

Mscoville

Atheist, now you're just being insulting.

Am I? How so? Sorry to hear I'm giving this impression.

I don't remember where the question was last posted so I'll just ask what you thought of Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box". I haven't read it yet. Does it seem credible?

Well, Behe is a credible scientist - and "irreducible complexity" does pose a challenge to traditional darwinian change (although it doesn't pose a particularly great challenge, several seemingly irreducible organs have indeed been reduced, like the eye).

However, there is no real way of every ruling out intelligent design scientifically - because it's always possible that God did have a hand in things from the start. However, the real question is: did evolution occur - that is, are all animals related. Behe's book isn't really useful in answering this question - it deals with the method of evolution (how it happened, natural selection and mutation etc) - not whether it did happen.

[Guest mscoville]

Thanks.