This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I'm calling you out, Marioguy5. Let's debate evolution and creationism

#91ThuggernautzPosted 11/14/2012 12:30:20 PM(edited)
Marioguy5 posted...

They weren't created exactly the same time. And what discrepancy? Why couldn't God just put them there? If he can make reality, don't you think he could create tube worms?


EDIT: This post has flipped over to a new page, don't forget to read my last post please to answer your previous questions.

I see. Then they weren't all created on Day 6? How do you also explain the order of creation in Genesis being completely wrong based on the evidence we have uncovered?

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.


(Vegetation came AFTER simpler pro and eukaryotes, or animal life. This is not supported by archaeology)

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

(The sun was created after plants and the land, and after 'light'?)

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

(Birds are a very recent development relatively, and evolved from dinosaurs which would be classified as animals... but didn't come until the day after birds somehow?)

Day 6: Land animals and people.

(People are animals, and primates again are a very late evolutionary development).

Day 7: God "rested".

(God got tired?)

As for God just putting them there, sure. But was this all done on Day 6? Why the huge variance in strata for fossils, why would God actively deceive everyone in the Bible and then plant contradictory evidence everywhere for people to find later?
#92BetaSquadronPosted 11/14/2012 1:10:10 PM
Marioguy5 posted...
First off, I'll start with the mechanics of evolution. First off, there's a bunch of ideas Darwin had that have been disproved (most everyone agrees, even evolutionists). For example, he thought that if an animal grew very strong during it's life, it would pass on those traits. Or if someone had a major tan, that tan could be passed on. Or if you cut the tail off a mouse, it's offspring wouldn't have tails. Stuff like that has obviously been debunked. So that mechanic is false. But I'm sure you knew that, I'm just working through.

Wasn't that Lamarck, not Darwin?
#93ave1Posted 11/14/2012 1:11:19 PM
Fingerpuppet, evolution of early life would necessarily require oxygen if there were organisms like algae near the surface of the water (as postulated by leading Evolutionists), because without it the radiation would damage things very quickly.

I suppose one might claim that life started evolving in the deep sea away from harmful cosmic radiation, but then you have thhe problem of no sunlight... and that leads to even more questions.
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#94ThuggernautzPosted 11/14/2012 1:44:33 PM
ave1 posted...
Fingerpuppet, evolution of early life would necessarily require oxygen if there were organisms like algae near the surface of the water (as postulated by leading Evolutionists), because without it the radiation would damage things very quickly.

I suppose one might claim that life started evolving in the deep sea away from harmful cosmic radiation, but then you have thhe problem of no sunlight... and that leads to even more questions.


Did you miss the part about extremophiles, which can use hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide in place of water for photosynthesis and can withstand stupendous amounts of radiation? They are even still around today in some of the most inhospitable places imaginable (kind of like the early Earth, funny that).
#95Marioguy5Posted 11/14/2012 1:44:39 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Marioguy5 posted...

They weren't created exactly the same time. And what discrepancy? Why couldn't God just put them there? If he can make reality, don't you think he could create tube worms?


EDIT: This post has flipped over to a new page, don't forget to read my last post please to answer your previous questions.

I see. Then they weren't all created on Day 6? How do you also explain the order of creation in Genesis being completely wrong based on the evidence we have uncovered?

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.


(Vegetation came AFTER simpler pro and eukaryotes, or animal life. This is not supported by archaeology)

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

(The sun was created after plants and the land, and after 'light'?)

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

(Birds are a very recent development relatively, and evolved from dinosaurs which would be classified as animals... but didn't come until the day after birds somehow?)

Day 6: Land animals and people.

(People are animals, and primates again are a very late evolutionary development).

Day 7: God "rested".

(God got tired?)

As for God just putting them there, sure. But was this all done on Day 6? Why the huge variance in strata for fossils, why would God actively deceive everyone in the Bible and then plant contradictory evidence everywhere for people to find later?


This is all assuming that the theory of evolution IS true. This link explains it well.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#96ArwenTinuvielPosted 11/14/2012 1:45:25 PM
Just a notion I want to bring up that seems to have been missed: (If someone has mentioned it already which I overlooked, I do apologize in advance)

Organisms don't evolve "into" a certain environment. Using a rough example: early lobe-finned fishes didn't look at land and decided on a plan to evolve more sturdy bones and structures for becoming future tetrapods. What happens is it already has the most rudimentary mechanism to take certain steps toward becoming land-base (either literally or metaphorically). Each evolutionary step refines the process a little, and at the same time each step is adapted to where the organism lives.
---
http://arwentinuviel.deviantart.com/
#97Marioguy5Posted 11/14/2012 1:51:07 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Marioguy5 posted...

Another question involving this all. What about UV rays and Ozone? Oxygen is poisonous to the formation of amino acids. Ozone is O3. Without the ozone layer, life couldn't form, even in (shallow) water. The UV rays would burn everything up. In order to O3, you need oxygen(obviously). Not enough oxygen could be produced without the oxygen cycle, which requires living organisms, which require an ozone layer to protect them.
This is a paradox I don't really understand yet, please enlighten me.


I explained this earlier. Oxygen and other elements were trapped under a heavy atmosphere of greenhouse gases, which prevented much of anything from escaping. This thick atmosphere also had the added benefit of providing a strong barrier from the huge amount of impacts during this period of planetary formation. Incidentally, many of these meteors also contained a huge amount of water, nitrogen and amino acids (look up the Murchison meteorite for an example of how many amino acids are just floating around in space) which through the impact degassing process was released into the fledgling atmosphere.

Oxygen is actually one of the key components of all amino acids, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's toxic to amino acid formation. It's actually the opposite, it's NEEDED in amino acid formation. In fact, amino acids protect biological samples from toxicity from too high levels of oxygen (relative to other atmospheric elements):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v262/n5567/abs/262418a0.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5926739

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids

Now, despite the high radiation from the lack of an ozone layer, know what else is really good at stopping UV radiation? Water. It's no small wonder that life began in the seas, with one of the leading theories being hydrothermal vents deep under the protect layer of the ocean as the ideal starting point for life. Further, we know from organisms that are STILL ALIVE today, there are extremophiles that can withstand obscene amounts of radiation; far more than would have made it through the thick water vapour and greenhouse gas atmosphere. Luckily for them, there would have been little predation and so their populations could expand dramatically, leading to the oxygen cycle.


Oh, thanks for that. I actually (of all things) read on an evolutionist website why earth needed to have no oxygen in it, because it prevents amino acids from forming.
Extremophiles do exist TODAY, but did they always? They're highly suitable for extreme conditions, but a simple-as-possible life form forming spontaneously....Could that be extremely suited to an extreme environment?
Another piece of trivia. Water prevents the linking together of amino acids. And heat destroys proteins. More info in links.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222559/k.E3FD/Whats_the_Problem_with_the_Evolution_of_Amino_Acids.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_heat_destroy_a_protein
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#98Marioguy5Posted 11/14/2012 1:53:39 PM
ArwenTinuviel posted...
Just a notion I want to bring up that seems to have been missed: (If someone has mentioned it already which I overlooked, I do apologize in advance)

Organisms don't evolve "into" a certain environment. Using a rough example: early lobe-finned fishes didn't look at land and decided on a plan to evolve more sturdy bones and structures for becoming future tetrapods. What happens is it already has the most rudimentary mechanism to take certain steps toward becoming land-base (either literally or metaphorically). Each evolutionary step refines the process a little, and at the same time each step is adapted to where the organism lives.


Good point. This is actually a main reason why I wonder how certain creatures went into extreme places like the deep sea. Would they go down there than, as they're dying, have a bunch of evolved babies? Obviously not.
---
If you are a Christian and 110% proud of it, put this as your signature.
If you are interested in science, check out the work of Dr. Carl Werner.
#99ArwenTinuvielPosted 11/14/2012 2:37:19 PM
Well, evolutionary speaking, the answer would be that many of them already possess the ability to live down there in varying degrees. Genetically animals aren't separated into those that can live and those that can't live in the deep sea. Tube warms, for example, are simple filter feeders seen in intertidal zones, and their larval forms are in fact free-floating planktons that could scatter far beyond their traditional range.

Abilities to digest and utilize foreign/potentially poisonous substance are often extensions of their original ability to detoxify existing substance. I'm not an expert in marine/evolutionary biology, of course, but certain biological systems, such as the cytochrome P450 and the electron transport chain, are repeatedly used for multiple kingdoms and ecosystems of life. Different mutations in certain amino acids may not have an effect in normal conditions, it's very possible that when you place one in a much harsher environment, there would emerge a winner between the two, one more capable of living in the deep sea compared to the other.
---
http://arwentinuviel.deviantart.com/
#100ThuggernautzPosted 11/14/2012 2:39:07 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]