1 - 20 of 27
seriouswarrior
You realize you're counting every single variety of animal here? He didn't take 9 million pairs of animals onto the ark. And with that 9 million, I hope you excluded fish and insects. There are only a couple hundred or couple thousand basic species of animals in the world. Noah didn't have to take dingoes, wolves, golden retrievers, beagels, dachshunds, and coyotes. He only needed two types of dog to continue the dog species. Not say he didn't take more; he could have. But you only need two dogs to get many, many varieties over the course of a thousand years or so. Also, note that he took only animals after their kind. The Bible says that a kind is two animals, that when put together, create a baby. A bobcat and a lynx are of a kind. They may not be the same "species" per-say, but they can make offspring. (just Google "lynxcat hybrid" if you think I'm kidding.)
seriouswarrior
Do you honestly expect me to go into detail over an animal of which all I have to go on is the Bible and what paleontologists were able dig up?
seriouswarrior
Show me proof that it ate only leaves, and no grasses.
lactarius77
it might not have been 9 million species when the flood came...
also, the great flood is proven, not the bible story though, only the flood itself.
Zach2039NonprofitProphetZach2039
I fail to see how a slippery slope fallacy can be true if it is not logically valid. True in logic does not equal false, and vice versa.
Micro evolution is speciation. This is observed in mutations and adaptations, though any evolution beyond that is left to the hypothetical.
Micro evolution typically refers to the ability for populations to adapt to their environment. Cockroaches develop immunities to poisons, etc. I have never seen it describe speciation until you said it just now.
This is the syllogistic structure of a slippery slope argument, and what makes it invalid:
X is A.
Y is B.
Therefore, Z is C.
This is obviously not a proof. Maybe my function has only 2 elements in the domain, X and Y. Maybe it's pure coincidence that X equals A and Y equals B. Maybe W equals J. Maybe Z equals L. So, the argument is logically invalid.
But that doesn't mean the argument is wrong. In fact, it is decent evidence that it is not. It is actually safer to assume that Z is C than to assume Z is L.
There are plenty of cases where a slippery slope argument turned out to be true. The Prime Minister of the UK, Neville Chamberlain, took a policy of appeasement toward Hitler, even though many warned him that Hitler's past actions and statements would lead him to try to conquer Europe. Their argument was not logically valid, as it did not prove that he WOULD do it, but it was sound, in that considerable evidence showed them that it would.
EDIT: Arguing that a conclusion is wrong because a premise is fallacious is called Argument from fallacy. It itself is a fallacy.
And in turn, arguing that just because I have committed the fallacy fallacy that my argument is wrong is also a fallacy fallacy. It's a viscous cycle.
EDIT: Now actually going to sleep
Zach2039NonprofitProphetZach2039
And it does not mean it has. To infer that, because mosquitoes under such an adaptation in a short amount of time, that they must certainly undergo a "genus break" in a longer amount of time is incorrect. Such assumptions are equivalent to a slippery slope fallacy, where just because Event X has occurred (or will or might occur), that event Y will inevitably happen.
Very true, however fallacious reasoning does not mean the conclusion is incorrect - making that assumption is itself a fallacy. A slippery slope argument is also sometimes true, even if it is not logically valid in the syllogistic sense.
I think you can clearly see my point, and accept that it makes sense and supports my argument, even if it does not PROVE it. I accept that it is possible that everything I said about speciation is true, yet somehow evolution stops there, abruptly. I think we can all agree that it is counterintuitive that that would be the case, though.
I'd also like to point out that all the higher taxonomic classifications have very loose definitions, except perhaps Kingdom (although there are some major issues there too). So it's really up to the biologist to decide whether a species is a new genus or not. They would never call the London Underground mosquito a new genus, of course, but I can imagine a scenario in the next few thousand years where we would come across a species that is arguably a new genus.
I fail to see how a slippery slope fallacy can be true if it is not logically valid. True in logic does not equal false, and vice versa.
Micro evolution is speciation. This is observed in mutations and adaptations, though any evolution beyond that is left to the hypothetical.
seriouswarrior
*cracks knuckles* okay, then. Round 2.
1. Yes, he can. If the largest part of his body is submerged under water, then that leaves ferns and trees and plants above that part of his body, filtering sunlight through overhead. He is like this while his raises his head however far above the water so he can feed.
2. Note that the Bible categorizes animals into certain categories. Beasts, creeping things, fishes, fowl, etc. The Brachiosaurus (or similar creature) was, indeed the largest beast God's made. Also, chiefs are noble. Perhaps the behemoth was noble and honorable, as a chief. Fish (whales were considered a fish; don't get confused by our modern, 21st century way of categorizing animals) are hardly considered noble. When's the last time someone even suggested that a fish was noble? Nevermind; that's besides the point.
3. I'll admit I don't know everything about the Bible. No one does. And I don't know how exactly the mountains bring forth the behemoth's food. However, streams from mountains can go for hundreds of miles. The fens don't have to be right there next to the mountains. Somehow, this supplied him with food. It kinda makes sense, because if the streams from the mountains dried up, that would kinda screw up his shady little corner.
4. There are many types of grass. I'm sure the Bible didn't mean just field grass or the grass you have just outside on your front lawn. You realize this can be taking place anywhere in the world? It could very well be in Africa. Things get huge in Africa. Things are also concealed and hidden through it's thick forests. Did you know that the largest swamp in the world is in Africa? And that it is less than 10% explored? That's due to many factors. But the point is, there are grasses in Africa that the Behemoth could chow down without having to eat like a frantic, starving cow.
Anything else, officer?
The Brachiosaurus (or similar creature) was, indeed the largest beast God's made.
calebwiebolt11NonprofitProphet
Yes, but a dog is only one species. A Yorkie and a St. Bernard each only count for 1 of the 9 million species.
i could write out a long explanation or just give you this link http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark
i think your mixed up about the differance between kinds and species.
Zach2039NonprofitProphetZach2039
Macro and Micro are not the same thing. They concern evolution, but focus on either mutations/adaptations or "the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types." IE. "fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal."
I've read that particular article before. It's grounded on falsehoods, reductionism, and mockery, but I'll ignore that for the sake of the argument.
What I mean by micro and macro evolution really being the same thing is that the mechanism for them happening is identical. One merely takes longer than the other.
For the record, your definition of "macro evolution" (I think you are saying it is when an animal species evolves into something very obviously different, like an amphibian species eventually becoming the first mammals) is not the one that most Creationists use, at least in my experience. They say the dividing line between micro and macro evolution is speciation.
If you can accept that a mosquito species can become totally isolated from reproducing with its former species, and evolve different prey, different breeding habits, different behaviors, and a different appearance in just 150 years, why is it so hard to believe that same species could (for example only, this will not happen) eventually lose the ability of flight and become mosquitos who, for example, eat the trash off the bottom of the Underground floor? The wings would then become a metabolical problem, and the ones with smaller wings would be more able to find a mate, either because their competition starved or they can more easily move to find a mate. Eventually, the wings would disappear. Their bodies would adapt a shape more suitable for life on the ground. Eventually, they would look nothing like mosquitos, and other species would likely evolve from them. At this point it becomes generiation (a word that probably doesn't exist that means the breaking of one genus into another). Add another hundred million years and you might have a familial break. This continues down the line. We will very likely never observe a genus break - we should consider ourselves lucky that we witnessed a handful of speciations. That doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't happened.
I'm not sure how much "higher" I have to go, but genus seems way more than enough, to me.
And it does not mean it has. To infer that, because mosquitoes under such an adaptation in a short amount of time, that they must certainly undergo a "genus break" in a longer amount of time is incorrect. Such assumptions are equivalent to a slippery slope fallacy, where just because Event X has occurred (or will or might occur), that event Y will inevitably happen.
seriouswarrior
Here we go with assumptions again. Okay, how do you know the brachiosaurus didn't eat grass? Hmm? Scientists assume that because of its teeth and because of its long neck that the brachiosaurus used it to reach up into tall trees and feed off of them. And, hey, they might have. But what if they just really liked to chill out in tall-grassed areas and sniff around through the grasses? Just like squirrels don't only eat acorns, like the cliche' goes; they also eat corn and fruits and insects as well.
By the "chief of the ways of God," It's saying something like: "Dude This is by far the biggest animal I've ever seen - and it only proclaims God's awesomeness that much more." or "Dude. That's gotta be like... the big chief of all the animals. Because it's the hugest animal I've ever seen."
Okay, now, you're assuming that the beast is standing up, out of the water, chomping on some trees. And it doesn't say that he took shelter in the reeds and fens (also "swamp"). I'm pretty sure he wasn't hiding. Are you kidding me? I'm sure it knew it couldn't hide very well. It seems like he's describing him as liking to hang out in the cool waters of the swamp. And what if once down in the waters, the trees shaded him? And maybe he did eat from the trees then? If he was submerged in water, all he would have to do is lean out and have a meal. Amiright?
As for the mountains bringing him forth food, doesn't water flow from the mountains? Animals tend to live around water sources. And the brachiosaurus loves the swamps and the water, apparently. And trees and grasses grow generously around water sources. As for saying he would more likely go into a valley than a mountain: Valleys can have lots of foliage. Just sayin. And it doesn't say that he goes there to get food - only that it brings him forth food. This implies that the food is coming to him, and not the other way around.
I hope this cleared some things up a bit.
Zach2039
Macro and Micro are not the same thing. They concern evolution, but focus on either mutations/adaptations or "the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types." IE. "fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal."
calebwiebolt11NonprofitProphetcalebwiebolt11now your saying "caleb dinosaurs couldn't fit on the boat" well that's why you don't take full grown dinosaurs you take little babies ones.
There are around 9 million species of animals on Earth. To assume Noah managed to get them all on his boat, you have to assume that God bent the laws of physics a bit to make it possible to fit that many animals in such a small boat. That isn't proof that the story is false of course (after all, the Bible itself says God made the animals board the boat themselves), just that your reasoning is a bit off.
the bible does not claim that noah took every species he took animals based on there KINDS. meaning that he dint take all the breeds of dogs along he took 1 and through breeding they became the multiple breeds that we have today.
calebwiebolt11now your saying "caleb dinosaurs couldn't fit on the boat" well that's why you don't take full grown dinosaurs you take little babies ones.
Zach2039NonprofitProphetZach2039
Please reference where it is described as typically. I would like to see for myself.
I might be hard pressed to find you a dictionary definition, because this is more of a biology concept, but here's a great summary from stanford.edu:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Species_and_Speciation.html
And the Wiki page, which is filled with more technical jargon than I would like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
EDIT: An even better summary, from berkely.edu:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
Thank you.
Macro Evolution:Def
"Major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time."
Macro Evolution concerns taxonomic ranks up much higher on the tree. Micro evolution focuses on the lower levels. The mosquito did not undergo macro evolution, rather it underwent micro evolution. It's higher ranks did not change.
seriouswarrior
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
[/b]
Now tell me that doesn't perfectly describe this specimen right here.
Zach2039
Please reference where it is described as typically. I would like to see for myself.
Zach2039NonprofitProphetseriouswarrior
And we have never seen MACRO evolution happen. We have never seen a dog produce a non-dog. Ever. We have never seen Cats produce non-cats. It just doesn't happen. There are barriers in the DNA code that prevent that from happening. However, you CAN have MICRO evolution.
Not true! We have observed a species become another species - a mosquito!
The London Underground mosquito is incapable of breeding with any other mosquito other than it's own, London Underground species. It is of different size and shape than any other mosquito, and the mosquito it evolved from does not feed on humans.
How did it happen so fast? Well, the London Underground was created in the mid-19th century (just 4 years after Darwin finished his seminal work!) and it created a niche that didn't exist in the area before. Evolution didn't have to worry about getting lucky and hoping the mosquitos with the positive traits procreated more often, because ONLY the mosquitos with the proper adaption survived to procreate.
That is micro evolution:
def:
Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
The mosquito did not become a non-mosquito. It remained a mosquito.
Zach2039NonprofitProphetLubzy
And the comment you shared with me didn't shed much light on me. A big bang couldn't just magically radiate towards our "potential" universe if there was nothing there. Let's say there's a room out in the wilderness. If a bomb or something were to be placed inside, it would explode, but it wouldn't create enough matter to make another room that could never be there before. It makes no sense as I have said before. Exactly.
Your bomb could possibly create a small amount of new matter. Who said the Big Bang created as much matter as it had energy? The Big Bang certainly "lost" some of that energy as matter formed. The "lost" energy was conserved, of course, it simply did not become matter, it became what we call background radiation, among other things.
The LHC has created matter and antimatter by converting kinetic energy. Matter being created from energy is not only theoretically true, it has been observed in the field.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing.
seriouswarrior
And we have never seen MACRO evolution happen. We have never seen a dog produce a non-dog. Ever. We have never seen Cats produce non-cats. It just doesn't happen. There are barriers in the DNA code that prevent that from happening. However, you CAN have MICRO evolution.
Lubzy
And the comment you shared with me didn't shed much light on me. A big bang couldn't just magically radiate towards our "potential" universe if there was nothing there. Let's say there's a room out in the wilderness. If a bomb or something were to be placed inside, it would explode, but it wouldn't create enough matter to make another room that could never be there before. It makes no sense as I have said before. Exactly.
1 - 20 of 27
