Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

Here are the dimensions of Noah's ark....
"God spells out to Noah the dimensions of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high)."
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=noah's+ark+length&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Here are the dimensions of Titanosaurus...
"Towering 65ft high and weighing the same as 14 African elephants, the titanosaur is thought to be the largest creature ever to have walked the earth.

The 130ft long colossus’s bones were found by a farm worker near Patagonia in southern Argentina, where it lived 100 million years ago."
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/titanosaurus-at-seven-storeys-tall-1.1690190

To see this largest ever fossil click on the link below...

https://www.facebook.com/naturalhis...0.82903.13259856990/10153140808826991/?type=3

According to 6days, a male and female of these went onto the Ark.
Pity that Titanosaurus could not even lift its head to full height in the Ark.

And just 4 different dinosaur species the size of Titanosaur, would have taken up the total length of the ark.

Need I say any more

 

[Tyrathca]

Here are the dimensions of Noah's ark....
"God spells out to Noah the dimensions of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high)."
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=noah's+ark+length&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Here are the dimensions of Titanosaurus...
"Towering 65ft high and weighing the same as 14 African elephants, the titanosaur is thought to be the largest creature ever to have walked the earth.

The 130ft long colossus’s bones were found by a farm worker near Patagonia in southern Argentina, where it lived 100 million years ago."
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/titanosaurus-at-seven-storeys-tall-1.1690190

To see this largest ever fossil click on the link below...

https://www.facebook.com/naturalhis...0.82903.13259856990/10153140808826991/?type=3

According to 6days, an adult male and female of these went onto the Ark.
Pity that Titanosaurus could not even lift its head to full height in the Ark.

And just 4 different dinosaur species the size of Titanosaur, would have taken up the total length of the ark.

Need I say any more

Amd yet 6days will probably either ignore this or claim superhypermega-evolution from a smaller "kind" with somehow more "information" (genetics be damned)

 

[TheDuke]

This one is serious

This one is serious

Hi everyone,

And I do mean everyone.
The following is a huge video that I stumbled onto and I thought was worth sharing.

It is a compassionate personal story about the search for truth and spirituality that covers too numerous topics to mention (it's also quite long)

IMO there's a lot here that both theist and atheist can profit from.

An unexpected journey

I do recommend to take the time and watch all of it

 

[Jonahdog]

Amd yet 6days will probably either ignore this or claim superhypermega-evolution from a smaller "kind" with somehow more "information" (genetics be damned)

God told them to just take the babies.

 

[iouae]

God told them to just take the babies.

That explains why there are none around today.
After being released, they all got eaten because they were babies.

 

[6days]

,*https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

No fallacy involved. Mutations destroy.

I like this definition of ad hominem...

"An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence" (Urban Dictionary)

Too bad you don't read/understand the very definition you provide. Otherwise you'd be able to tell a fallacy from an insult

Its both.

*I'm yet again glad that you are being so honest in admitting utter lack of curiosity about the world due to self-inflicted dogma

Strawman ... your misrepresentaion is dishonest. Claiming that the evidence best fits "God created" was the starting point for modern science. Many modern scientists still have that as their foundation to science believing we live in a world with logic... and through science we can discover purpose and design. *


Example * "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.

Prof.Henry Schaefer,Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for ComputationalQuantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.*

.the argument from Duke was that mutations don't destroy. It seems you wish to move the goalposts rather than admit a fellow evolutionist doesn't understand science. Yes, some mutations have a beneficial outcome but that wasn't the argument.

Excellent, so you do admit to beneficial mutations, how marvelous. Because reading all your other posts, one could easily reach the conclusion that "Mutations destroy".

Your denial that mutations damage and destroy shows how little you understand about science / biology / genetics. There are many genetic disorders caused by mutations that destroy cells...cause organ damage...corrupt genetic info...etc

Our genome is crumbling at a much higher rate than selection can keep up with. Geneticists are concerned about high mutational burden..... Not a single geneticist thinks that mutations with a beneficial outcome is going to save the human race.

The evidence is consistent with God's Word. We were "wonderfully made" but live in a fallen world where death, pain, and suffering exist. As Christians we look forward to that time when He shall wipe every tear, and death no longer exists."

Unintelligible, incongruent babble

Sure... because you don't know what mutations are.*


* *

 

[6days]

Yes, some mutations have a beneficial outcome but that wasn't the argument

Glad we agree that mutation increasing fitness levels is an observed fact.

Not really Jose. Mutations that have a beneficial outcome often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness. For example some island species can be highly adapted (mutations and slection) to a very precise environment. However, they are unable to survive even slight enviromental change. They have lost some of the genetic info that existed in parent populations.*

"...even so called "beneficial" mutations usually, and possibly always are a result of a mutation destroying pre-existing geneti info. For example a mutation could destroy the specificity of an enzyme, allowing a beneficial outcome. Loss of information again is the opposite of what evolutionism needs.

Since that's not what occurred in the example I provided, the above isn't relevant.*genetic info

Mutations destroy.*

And my general statement on mutations just happens to describe the milano mutation...

"What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.

Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change"

Mutations destroy....even so called "beneficial" mutations usually, and possibly always are a result of a mutation destroying pre-existing genetic info.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not really Jose. Mutations that have a beneficial outcome often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness.

Why, because you say so? Again, why do you think your unsupported, empty say-so carries any weight at all?

And in the example I provided, the net result was an increase in fitness.

For example some island species can be highly adapted (mutations and slection) to a very precise environment. However, they are unable to survive even slight enviromental change. They have lost some of the genetic info that existed in parent populations.

And other species, e.g., niche generalists, have evolved in the opposite direction, to where they can survive almost anywhere and in a variety of environments.

But it's interesting to see you make this argument. On one hand you try and argue that loss of specificity is a net negative, but here you are arguing that increased specificity is also a net negative.

Try and have it both ways much?

"What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs.

IOW, the overall result is a net increase in fitness. Whatever decrease resulting from the reduction in HDLs is more than made up for by the increase in antioxidation. Also of note is that this discovered new evolutionary trait has led to new cardio-vascular disease treatments (rather than removing cholesterol, some now add in an antioxidant process similar to this one). So again we see how evolution adds to our understanding of biology, and directly leads to new medical advances.

In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred."

That's just stupid. The "specificity" he's talking about wouldn't even matter were it not for the mutation that allows it to act. Only the mutated form protects lipids from oxidation.

But then, we know how creationists read papers like this. They just go through it looking for excuses to wave it away and declare "It doesn't count".

Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information.

So wait....are you saying "specificity" = "genetic information"? That would help a lot, since none of you creationists seem to be able to say what "genetic information" is.

 

[Jose Fly]

Mutations that have a beneficial outcome often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness.

Let's put that in context with other parts of your "Biblical model of creation".

So ~4,500 years ago, every species on earth was reduced to a single breeding pair (except the clean organisms that had 7 individuals). Then, after the flood those single breeding pairs (representatives of each "kind") evolved rapidly into the diversity of species we see today.

Putting that with what you wrote above, that means your "model" stipulates that you can take a single breeding pair, and through a process of nothing but losses in fitness over ~4,500 years, produce tens or even hundreds of different species.

Further, Stripe has said that natural selection never occurs ever. You have said you agree. Thus, not only does your model include ~4,500 years of constant fitness reduction in order to produce immense diversity in very little time, there isn't even any selection to weed out the deleterious alleles!

Yeah.....makes total sense.

 

[6days]

According to 6days, a male and female of these went onto the Ark....
And just 4 different dinosaur species the size of Titanosaur, would have taken up the total length of the ark.

The God of the Bible is not as stupid as you make Him out to be. How much room would 2 juvenile sauropods take?*

 

[Tyrathca]

The God of the Bible is not as stupid as you make Him out to be. How much room would 2 juvenile sauropods take?*

How many generations would it take to create all the different sauropods from two progenitors?

 

[6days]

Mutations that have a beneficial outcome often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness.

Why, because*you*say so?

Sure...thats one reason. *The more logical reason is because of evidence. Yet, another reason woild be because there are biologists and geneticists who say so.*

Lets keep on track though ok. What started this discussion was someone saying mutations don't deatroy. Mutations do destroy though, don't they?*

:

For example some island species can be highly adapted (mutations and slection) to a very precise environment. However, they are unable to survive even slight enviromental change. They have lost some of the genetic info that existed in parent populations.

And other species, e.g., niche generalists, have evolved in the opposite direction, to where they can survive almost anywhere and in a variety of environments.

What has really happened is that populations *have highly adapted theough loss of genetic information. Meanwhile, there may be some who have retained the full complement of pre-existing genetic info.*

:

"What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs.

IOW, the overall result is a net increase in fitness.

Nope..... you didn't quote the rest of that paragraph. It continues....."*In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.


Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change"

:

So again we see how evolution adds to our understanding of biology, and directly leads to new medical advances.

*Actually what we see is that even in the best examples evolutionista can offer there has been a loss od pre-existing genetic info. As geneticist John Sanford says, he is unaware of a single mutation that has caused an increase of information.*

So wait....are you saying "specificity" = "genetic information"? That would help a lot, since none of you creationists seem to be able to say what "genetic information" is.

You are being a wee bit dishonest since I recall providing a definition to you and discussing it wiith you.

 

[6days]

How many generations would it take to create all the different sauropods from two progenitors?

Not sure. How many generations would it take to produce a wide variety of dogs from a couple wolves?

But in any case, you might be looking at it backwards. The Sauropods in the fossil record would all be pre-flood.

 

[iouae]

The God of the Bible is not as stupid as you make Him out to be. How much room would 2 juvenile sauropods take?*

Believe me, the God of the Bible is not stupid.
It's the idea that God took dinosaurs which died out 65 million years before, onto the ark, that I scoff at.

And why did all other animals survive, and the dinosaurs die out after the flood? Would there be any sense in God doing that?

And, incidentally, there would have had to have been pairs of all the other mega-fauna such as the huge mammals of the Eocene. They too would have had to also have been on the ark.

Today, less than 1% of all animals which have ever existed, are around. Yet you insist that 100% of all land animals which ever lived, were taken onto the ark. I say that only the animals we see today were taken onto the ark. And even then it would have been a squeeze.

"The basic pattern established during the Eocene epoch--large, dumb, herbivorous mammals preyed on by smaller but brainier carnivores--persisted into the Oligocene and Miocene, 33 to 5 million years ago. The cast of characters was a bit stranger, featuring such brontotheres ("thunder beasts") as the gigantic, hippo-like Brontotherium and Embolotherium, as well as difficult-to-classify monsters like Indricotherium, which looked (and probably behaved) like a cross between a horse, a gorilla, and a rhinoceros. The largest non-dinosaur land animal that ever lived, Indricotherium weighed as much as 40 tons, making adults pretty much immune to predation by contemporary saber-toothed cats.

The Megafauna of the Pliocene and Pleistocene Epochs

Giant mammals like Indricotherium and Uintatherium haven't resonated with the public as much as the more familiar megafauna of the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs. This is where we encounter fascinating beasts like Castoroides (the Giant Beaver) and Coelodonta (the Woolly Rhino), not to mention mammoths, mastodons, the giant cattle ancestor known as the Auroch, the giant deer Megaloceros, the Cave Bear, and the biggest saber-toothed cat of them all, Smilodon. Why did these animals grow to such comical sizes? Perhaps a better question to ask is why their descendants are so tiny--after all, svelte beavers, sloths and cats are a relatively recent development. (All kidding aside, it may have something to do with the prehistoric climate, or a strange equilibrium that prevailed between predators and prey).

No discussion of prehistoric megafauna would be complete without a digression about South America and Australia, island continents that incubated their own strange array of huge mammals (until about three million years ago, South America was completely cut off from North America). South America was the home of the three-ton Megatherium, the Giant Sloth, as well as such bizarre beasts as Glyptodon (a prehistoric armadillo the size of a Volkswagen Bug) and Macrauchenia, which can best be described as a horse crossed with a camel crossed with an elephant.

Australia, millions of years ago as today, had the strangest assortment of giant wildlife on the planet, including Diprotodon (the Giant Wombat), Procoptodon (the Giant Short-Faced Kangaroo) and Thylacoleo (the Marsupial Lion), as well as non-mammalian megafauna like Bullockornis (better known as the Demon Duck of Doom), the giant turtle Meiolania, and the giant monitor lizard Megalania (the largest land-dwelling reptile since the extinction of the dinosaurs)."

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/giant-megafauna-mammals.htm

You really need to learn to read rocks 6days.
Your rock-reading illiteracy makes you come across like Fred Flintstone.

 

[MichaelCadry]

6days didn't answer because the belief that Elijah would return first was just wrong! It's indefensible.

When John warned of "the wrath to come" he was just wrong! No wrath came, but Bible worshipers must then be dishonest snake oil salesmen because you are simply too proud to admit errors in the Bible. If your religion does not command a base level of intellectual honestly in you then it has failed!

Dear Caino,

You will see what kind of wrath shall come soon enough!! God showed much wrath after Jesus died, and caused a great earthquake after Jesus died, and many of the saints arose from their graves, and were seen by the people. Now, preceding His second coming, you will see wrath of the strongest magnitude come upon the Earth, an earthquake so huge that none has been as great as since man was upon the Earth. Will that be a great enough earthquake for you?? You are too much!! You shall be on your knees, along with everyone else!!

Que Lastima!! {What A Shame, in Spanish}

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Here are the dimensions of Noah's ark....
"God spells out to Noah the dimensions of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high)."
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=noah's+ark+length&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Here are the dimensions of Titanosaurus...
"Towering 65ft high and weighing the same as 14 African elephants, the titanosaur is thought to be the largest creature ever to have walked the earth.

The 130ft long colossus’s bones were found by a farm worker near Patagonia in southern Argentina, where it lived 100 million years ago."
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/titanosaurus-at-seven-storeys-tall-1.1690190

To see this largest ever fossil click on the link below...

https://www.facebook.com/naturalhis...0.82903.13259856990/10153140808826991/?type=3

According to 6days, a male and female of these went onto the Ark.
Pity that Titanosaurus could not even lift its head to full height in the Ark.

And just 4 different dinosaur species the size of Titanosaur, would have taken up the total length of the ark.

Need I say any more

Dear iouae,

I have never heard of a Titanosaurus or Colossus until today from you. I wonder why? And did they find the whole length of the Colossus' bones there, to give them the length of it? Was it really THAT Long? Show me the bones to both of them!! I just don't believe it!! Not one bit!! Iouae, find something to do that is a better choice for your time. What is this goal of yours to trump 6days?? What are you playing, Euchre or Pinochle? I've played both and they are both fun, but not here. They do pass the hours away though. Find ways instead to help anchor and strengthen your mates instead. Thanks, iouae!!

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Amd yet 6days will probably either ignore this or claim superhypermega-evolution from a smaller "kind" with somehow more "information" (genetics be damned)

Dear Tyrathca,

Do you practice being a witch or a wizard?? What is with you?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi everyone,

And I do mean everyone.
The following is a huge video that I stumbled onto and I thought was worth sharing.

It is a compassionate personal story about the search for truth and spirituality that covers too numerous topics to mention (it's also quite long)

IMO there's a lot here that both theist and atheist can profit from.

An unexpected journey

I do recommend to take the time and watch all of it

Dear TheDuke,

There is NO WAY I am investing two hours of my time watching a video recommended by you, much less 5 mins. I haven't asked you to watch any movies, either.

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Tyrathca,

Do you practice being a witch or a wizard?? What is with you?

Michael

Ummmmm no...... why are you even asking that?

If you are referring to my avatar that it is nothing more than a computer game character (and not even a magical one - it's actually sci-fi). For the record I am not nor have I ever believed in witches or wizards, I find the whole concept of magic to be silly to be honest.

 

[iouae]

Dear iouae,

I have never heard of a Titanosaurus or Colossus until today from you. I wonder why? And did they find the whole length of the Colossus' bones there, to give them the length of it? Was it really THAT Long? Show me the bones to both of them!! I just don't believe it!! Not one bit!! Iouae, find something to do that is a better choice for your time. What is this goal of yours to trump 6days?? What are you playing, Euchre or Pinochle? I've played both and they are both fun, but not here. They do pass the hours away though. Find ways instead to help anchor and strengthen your mates instead. Thanks, iouae!!

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael
​

Hi Michael

Titanosaurus was mentioned on BBC TV as being possibly the biggest dinosaur found so far. There is believed to be a bigger one.

To see this largest ever fossil click on the link below...

https://www.facebook.com/naturalhis...0.82903.13259856990/10153140808826991/?type=3

Only the land animals we see around us today went onto the Ark.
6days is wrong to think dinosaurs went onto the Ark.
Four pairs of these lined up in a row, would take up the total length of the Ark.

There is no record of man and dinosaur being contemporaries.

When a religious person speaks nonsense, it is no different to when an atheist speaks nonsense. That is why 6days, with his good points on some subjects, needs to shut up about dinosaurs being taken onto the ark. If pairs of every land animal which ever existed were placed together in one spot, it would take up hundreds of Arks.

If however, a pair of every kind of land animal around today were placed together (their average size being that of a Rhesus monkey), they could fit into the Ark.

Two years ago Michael, you were an old earth creationist. And you were right on the science back then. And then someone came along and persuaded you otherwise. And that after you claim the Lord showed you the truth, which was old earth creationism.

You need to return to what you believed two years ago Michael. Just go back and read your posts from around November 2013 if you want the truth.

Regards