Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#114391 Jun 16, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
We also now know that cross species mutations can be effected through the microbial world with LGT or HGT .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_...
So evolution finds a way, even without the conventional methods.
We have known most of that for 50 or so years. Bacterial conjugation is like sexual reproduction, transduction is like being infected by a virus carrying genetic material, gene transfer agent requires a certain receptor and transformation is like absorbing what comes off/out of the other organism.

Still an interesting read. Thanks for the link.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#114392 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of dry land areas with elevations below sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_o...
Stick to no flood for your argument about sea level holds no water. No pun intended.
What he is saying is that the oceans cover as much land as they can and there isn't enough water to cover the remaining land so it is dry land. It logically follows that if there is not enough water to cover the earth now, then how could there have been 4500 ybp. At least I think I interpreted that correctly or close.

It is a good argument. It would take about 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth above Mt. Everest. The volume of available water on earth is estimated at 1.4 billion cubic kilometers. So the questions that remain unanswered are where did all this water come from and where did it go.

All the creationist answers to these questions that I have seen so far are conjecture not based on evidence and often offered as fact in the face of evidence to the contrary.

There simply isn't enough water to cover the globe and all the answers by creationists just open new doors to new questions that are either left unanswered or addressed with more conjecture.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#114393 Jun 16, 2014
HAGER wrote:
The ocean water may have came up from a vast supply between the upper and lower mantle and the salt was brought up with it.
Conjecture that you can't support with evidence. Show us the evidence.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#114394 Jun 16, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>What he is saying is that the oceans cover as much land as they can and there isn't enough water to cover the remaining land so it is dry land. It logically follows that if there is not enough water to cover the earth now, then how could there have been 4500 ybp. At least I think I interpreted that correctly or close.
It is a good argument. It would take about 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth above Mt. Everest. The volume of available water on earth is estimated at 1.4 billion cubic kilometers. So the questions that remain unanswered are where did all this water come from and where did it go.
All the creationist answers to these questions that I have seen so far are conjecture not based on evidence and often offered as fact in the face of evidence to the contrary.
There simply isn't enough water to cover the globe and all the answers by creationists just open new doors to new questions that are either left unanswered or addressed with more conjecture.
I read a story(I will try to find the link) that states that reservoirs hidden beneath the Earth's crust holds as much water as all of the oceans. I read a story the other day about another huge ocean of water found beneath earths crusts. Posted it to kab in that thread.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#114395 Jun 16, 2014
HAGER wrote:
<quoted text>I have been keeping up with the latest findings which suggest there is great amounts of water below to upper mantle. Real scientific research is bringing this to light.
Yes, I have seen some of these reports. It is an old search, but it is a bit early for you to jump on the bandwagon. Even if does provide the additional 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, it doesn't address the amount of other solid evidence against the flood. At best you would score 1 out of 30, so don't get your hopes up just yet. More evidence will help sort this out, but it isn't a nail in the coffin for science.

Don't forget, the evidence that shows that areas of the Atacama desert have not seen water for 100,000's of thousands of years. Or the ice caps that still exist when they would have been destroyed by a global flood. Or the heat put out by all that rain in 40 days that would have boiled the earth and Noah and company. Or the fact that in all the fossil evidence that you claim is the result of the flood there are no people until the very top where evolution indicates they should be. Or...and so on.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#114396 Jun 16, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
This brings up another point which I've already asked our resident creationists, and have not yet gotten an answer.
15 cubits is around 7 meters. How did Noah know the highest peak was covered with +7 meters of water? If the entire planet was covered with water, there would be no visible reference to which he could calculate a depth. If the water rose so high, so fast (Covering the planet in 40 days, give or take), the sea would be such a raging mass that simply surviving would be the priority at hand, not navigating to find what Noah thought to be where the highest peak would be, and trying to measure the depth at that point.
I still think that is one great question. I wish I had thought of it. Who measured the flood depth and how did they know where to find the highest mountain or navigate to it for that matter? It leads to other questions. For instance, if they could navigate, why land on the side of a mountain? It doesn't look like an easy trip off of the Mountains of Ararat.

Bass Tracker with a fish finder. That must be it.

If I could, I would by you a drink for coming up with this one. Well done. Hope you don't mind, I use this now, with the proper credit of course.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#114397 Jun 16, 2014
After conducting research for decades, scientists have discovered that a vast water reservoir might be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the Earth's crust. The amount might be enough to fill the Earth's oceans three times over.
http://www.gizmodo.in/indiamodo/Vast-Reservoi...

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-di...

There are more links on others but to be sure there is no misunderstanding here, none of that means a world wide flood is/was possible. All I am saying is there is more water under us than we ever thought.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#114398 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read a story(I will try to find the link) that states that reservoirs hidden beneath the Earth's crust holds as much water as all of the oceans. I read a story the other day about another huge ocean of water found beneath earths crusts. Posted it to kab in that thread.
If the evidence turns out to support this, then that would account for the volume needed to cover Mt Everest. But it still remains that it would need to move up 400 miles in 40 days and that leaves the rain in question. Though I can see an counterpoint being that this is the water that returned to the depths of the earth after the flood. Nevertheless, it would be only 1 in 30 or maybe many more legitimate objections. Not a very good score. At the worst it weakens one objection markedly, but that objection isn't a game changer. Counter to this would be that the existence of a reservoir of that size does not show a flood or any indication of a flood and does not address the issues concerning the release of all the energy from the flood.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114399 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
In that sense Repro was a darn sight closer than you.
Does natural selection happen before or after mutation?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114400 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. A giant asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs doesn't demonstrate someone intended the dinos to die a horrible death.
Unless you're saying someone deliberately threw that big rock their way.
And I'd ask for evidence at that point of course...
Does the universe have the capacity for intelligence?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114401 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read a story(I will try to find the link) that states that reservoirs hidden beneath the Earth's crust holds as much water as all of the oceans. I read a story the other day about another huge ocean of water found beneath earths crusts. Posted it to kab in that thread.
Perhaps you read it, I can guarantee that you did not understand it.

What sort of reservoirs do you think they were talking about?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114402 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
After conducting research for decades, scientists have discovered that a vast water reservoir might be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the Earth's crust. The amount might be enough to fill the Earth's oceans three times over.
http://www.gizmodo.in/indiamodo/Vast-Reservoi...
Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-di...
There are more links on others but to be sure there is no misunderstanding here, none of that means a world wide flood is/was possible. All I am saying is there is more water under us than we ever thought.
I see that I was correct in my previous post.

Those articles do not say that a world wide flood is possible.

You did not understand what you read. Or else you read articles that were simplified too much.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114403 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you shifting your burden of proof to me?
How about I back my claims up (which I do) and you back your claims up?
Which you don't.
Is looking for evidence that someone said something, the same as looking for evidence that a vehicle has passed a particular spot?

Do words have the same effects as tire tracks?

Do words leave impressions on the ground like tire tracks?

Do we not know that when looking for evidence of things, it is the nature of the thing that determines how that thing will/can be investigated?

Shifting burden of proof?

Surely you misconstrue.

I asked you to describe the nature of (my) God, because I became worried.

That idea YOU possess of what (a) "god" is, is absolutely different from mine.

So there is no way you could make certain assumptions or draw particular conclusions about (my) God; BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM/IT.

I asked you to expalin etc how scientific method does not have the limit I presented.

Because unless you were a data storage device, I utterly fail to see how your mind can be stuck in such a way that you have information but cannot acknowledge a simple fact.

Are you afraid of something?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114404 Jun 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Then please explain why. I'll wait.
How do you identify an intention?

And recall that the absence of verbal, written etc does not represent the absence of intention.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114405 Jun 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Better take that cigarette out of your mouth before you try to jump that hurdle.
A moderately interesting and data-less opinion you have.
Liar.

I have made an observation, not an opinion.

Will:
"—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job>>>"

[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]

Disposition:
"2. a natural or acquired tendency, INCLINATION, or habit in a person or thing"
[http://dictionary.reference.c om]

"in·cli·na·tion
: a feeling of wanting to do something : a tendency to do something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]

THEREFORE:

Both "will" (intent) and "disposition" (natural tendency, such as natural selection) REPRESENT INCLINATIONS.

And since we are of nature and exist in nature, both human will and disposition of the world express the "inclination" of nature.

We are nature, being natural products of it and remaining in it; therefore whatever terms can be applied to man can be applied to nature.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114406 Jun 17, 2014
... and a description of man is a description of nature.
THE LONE WORKER

Duluth, GA

#114407 Jun 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I have seen some of these reports. It is an old search, but it is a bit early for you to jump on the bandwagon. Even if does provide the additional 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, it doesn't address the amount of other solid evidence against the flood. At best you would score 1 out of 30, so don't get your hopes up just yet. More evidence will help sort this out, but it isn't a nail in the coffin for science.
Don't forget, the evidence that shows that areas of the Atacama desert have not seen water for 100,000's of thousands of years. Or the ice caps that still exist when they would have been destroyed by a global flood. Or the heat put out by all that rain in 40 days that would have boiled the earth and Noah and company. Or the fact that in all the fossil evidence that you claim is the result of the flood there are no people until the very top where evolution indicates they should be. Or...and so on.
Well at least we scored a point with this little discussion. Stay tuned for more of the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114408 Jun 17, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation and evolution are two separate concepts.
creation is a process of reproduction.
Exactly. That was what i was trying to explain to the Dude. Look it up!
They are really not seperate, they are part of the other.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114409 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Are we all clones? If not then evolution happens.
It's up to you if you wish to consider evolution to be an opposite to "creation" or not.(shrug)
Cloning?
What is your point?
Reproduction like i said, is a process of creation and not evolution.
Are you a cloned being?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114410 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the universe have the capacity for intelligence?
Does water burn?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 2 min Chimney1 502
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 24 min Chimney1 173,667
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 5 hr Kong_ 62
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 7 hr thewordofme 166
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Dogen 137,093
New review critical of "Origins" 12 hr Kong_ 3
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 14 hr Cujo 10
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••