07-16-2003, 03:09 PM | #321 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Yes, that's a good idea, IR - I usually like to type my posts "live", even the long ones, coz it just seems to have more of a conversation-among-friends feel (which is what I like about the Moot), but I think your idea is probably better for this subject and will not tie up the thread. (the 3-hour number was to allow for mom-type interruptions that inevitably occur when trying to type detailed posts!)
The whole point is to be able to present a more coherent picture of a topic or sub-topic. Let's keep to the opening, middle and end announcements idea, tho, so a coherent multi-post discussion won't get interrupted. Obviously, let's not go nuts with a massive number of posts in a row, either - the whole idea is exchange of information and intelligent discussion among Entmoot friends.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
07-16-2003, 09:06 PM | #322 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Ruinel -
Here's two links about the "living fossils", both from sites that support evolution: http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/li...ssils_home.asp http://school.discovery.com/lessonpl...livingfossils/ I have some more, but I thought these two would be enough for now.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
07-16-2003, 11:08 PM | #323 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: I have no idea.
Posts: 5,441
|
Quote:
Edit: ok, I've read them. But I still don't see how species that have not changed much over time has anything to do with creationism. Last edited by Ruinel : 07-16-2003 at 11:18 PM. |
|
07-17-2003, 01:07 AM | #324 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, sites that say that evolution is true, like those sites, very often have many mistakes in them .... (that's why the term is in quotes, you goofy elf, you!) Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 07-17-2003 at 01:11 AM. |
|||
07-17-2003, 10:13 AM | #325 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
The term "Living fossil" is an artistic invention used by journalists who wanted a catchy term to hype up news stories about the discovery of extant species that were thought to be extinct and known only through the fossil record.
It's not so much a mistake as it is hyperbole. The reason such species are still extant is that their "niche" or space hasn't changed at all for millions of years. Therefore they have not had to adapt.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
07-27-2003, 12:44 AM | #326 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Exponential growth, mathematically.
Okay, I have one argument I'd like to clarify and support that I made before, as well as some new evidence to bring up, which people earlier questioned the existence of.
The argument I'd like to bring back and clarify my evidence for is the mathematical one of exponential growth. First, before directing my attention to the arguments for science's current position on the development of hominids and the time in which that happened, I'd like to explain for any who aren't completely aware, what the mathematical arguments for exponential growth are. Exponential growth is simply an average rate of growth. Any average higher than the average '2' is exponential growth. 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, 2.01, just about any rate of growth higher than '2' will, within a thousand years (which is many generations) have produced a very large number of people. Any rate of decline below '2' will swiftly put an end to a human population. Humans tend to mate and give birth at a far faster rate than 2.01, or any of the other numbers I mentioned. What Cirdan mentioned earlier, about exponential growth becoming more of an even line as it gets closer to the beginning, simply mathematically makes no sense. For a species to grow, it has to have a higher growth rate than '2', and if it doesn't, it will die out soon. This growth rate is even taking into account wars or battles between tribes. The exponential growth prior to 5,000 B.C. has not been severely affected, despite World Wars 1 and 2, and the numerous other huge wars that have taken place. So mathematically, there is a severe problem. Now I shall get to the various reasons that have been brought up to solve this problem: |
07-27-2003, 01:38 AM | #327 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Crops are frequently referred to as what caused humanity to develop and grow. It is supposed to have enabled us to form communities and grow in populations, as well as to enable us to trade technology, thus enabling us to grow and thrive.
As we have already observed in my earlier post, for groups to grow and survive, let alone thrive, exponential growth is required. Crops do enable us to establish communities, and I believe they do indeed help in trade as well, enabling technology to spread at a faster rate. However, crops are not required for hunting development to grow, and they aren't required for tribes to expand or break into smaller groups. Exponential growth is needed to happen if these people were to survive, because of the observed mathematics. There were huge amounts of game available to the early hominids, and we have evidence that they made use of it. Archaic Homo have been found in Thomas Quarry, El Guettar, Haua Fteah, Bîr Tarfawi/Sahara, Bodo, Broken Hill, Chambuage Mine, Elandssfontein, and Florisbad. All those places are in Africa. These hominids have also been found Narmada, Treugol naya Cave, Bitzingsleben, and Vertesszöllös. Those places spread from Europe to the Mediterranean, and to other parts of the globe. This is just Archaic Homo. There are a huge number of other global sites I could mention to you. Just ask for more, and I'll give them to you. So we have clear evidence that, as exponential growth requires, humans did thrive. However, if they did thrive, the world would have been populated far more swiftly than has been observed. Indeed, let me quote from "The World Book," here. Quote:
There is actually a strong reason to move the date forward, rather than backward. |
|
07-27-2003, 01:40 AM | #328 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
There also is the fact that no animal bones have been found in the ice-free corridor from 22,500 BC to 10,500 BC (9,500 BC by radio carbon dating). That's a large part of the time all this movement of humans and animals was supposed to be taking place. There is really a lot more evidence on this subject I could give. So anyway, we have a fast expansion done by people who, through a large part of it, did not have access to crops. We also have information that the different types of hominids did indeed exist and thrive in numerous locations of the world. I could also quote a source which demonstrates the intelligence of the early humans as well- that's another point that seems to have been doubted by some. But above all these evidences, exponential growth is mathematical, and is necessary for our species' survival. There is evidence that it should have taken place, and that humanity was in the perfect situation for it to happen as well. Technology is not vital for human growth- else we would have died out when our brains were less large and our technology the smallest, rather than spreading to cover the globe, as we apparently did. Crops are not necessary for humans to spread- even though they are important to the construction of communities and the spread of technology. Crops and technology are not vital to human exponential growth, though they are a stimulant. And exponential growth is vital to human survival. The odds against humanity having averaged a '2' for each couple are incredibly remote. Our species had to either thrive or die out. High mortality rate plainly doesn't affect this. Why would we have kept with this small number of children? And how (questioning from the mathematical standpoint, more than anything else) could we have? |
|
07-27-2003, 02:11 AM | #329 | ||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Flood theory
All right, now I'm going to get back to funner territory . A while ago, people questioned my having a source book called "Ice ages," which contained in it scientific evidence of a world wide flood. I said at the time that it was dated to a long time ago, and I was completely correct. But science does acknowledge at least one world wide deluge.
Quote:
Quote:
This description is basically exactly like the scientifically accepted version that I have just read. I will present one theory which might interest some of you, about how the Flood happened. This theory is backed up by scientific evidence. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Lief Erikson : 07-27-2003 at 02:20 AM. |
||||
07-27-2003, 02:50 AM | #330 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Biblical possibilities
I actually don't believe the theory I just quoted is correct, for a couple reasons. One is that it somewhat disagrees with the Flood account of the Bible, in that the water came from the sky and from underground. Also, though this is a flood that would have affected the entire world with huge flooding, it isn't necessarily worldwide, which is also somewhat annoying.
In this theory the water comes from ice on the ground. The Biblical description doesn't fully tally, though it does in some aspects. Many of the evidences supporting this theory are sound, though. Such as the evidence of major extinctions at the time period that it states, and the abrupt changes between salt water and fresh water at about 5,000 to 6,000 BC, not to mention the human bodies and dwellings that based upon their theory, they predicted would turn up under the Black Sea, and the bodies and buildings of a civilization did turn up. So that is a theory that can be accepted and used. The book "Before the Flood," is written by Ian Wilson. The second reason I disagree with that theory I'll keep to myself, at the moment. However, scientifically it does pretty well hold water, from my perspective (no pun intended). I don't intend to defend it very strongly. If anyone wants to learn more about it and the numerous supportive scientific evidences, you should read the book. One other thing I wanted to say before closing down for the night. Science has completely validated through evolution the Biblical passage stating that man was created from dust. I would like to point out further though, that verse 24 of Genesis 1 seems also to be in support of evolution by environment. "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds'" It's interesting that it's written this way. Unlike many other passages that describe how from dust God created, this goes further and describes that the land itself produced the creatures in the forms they ended up being. Like the supercontinent passage, as Cirdan pointed out, it is possible to take in other ways (with some difficulty). But taken literally, it shows that environment had a hand to play in the shaping of the various kinds of creatures. Ah yes. One further thing I'd like to mention. Not something I'm demanding that anyone take as a proof, but Eve's coming from Adam is not impossible, scientifically speaking. He had the XY chromosome, which meant that he would logically be the one who started the race, for Y is unique to the male sex. Certain species of animals, when in dire situations in terms of finding mates, have been known to change their gender in order to give birth. This isn't certainly the way it happened, but I'm pointing out another aspect of the Creation story that seemed impossible except by a miracle, but which is demonstrated to be possible, by science. I personally am certain that God made Eve out of Adam's rib. Whether he crafted her through science or through a simple miracle I don't know, but it is interesting to consider the possibilities, as more of the Genesis story is made possible and even accepted by science. Last edited by Lief Erikson : 07-27-2003 at 03:03 AM. |
07-27-2003, 02:58 AM | #331 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Please remember, in your analysis of the Bible, that earlier on, almost none of it was accepted. Now, much more of it is becoming so. Most of the Old Testament and virtually all of the New Testament are strongly attested to the accuracy of, historically speaking. If the Bible had been molded to science two or three centuries ago, if it had allowed itself to change, as one of you suggested it needs to be able to to keep up to date, then it would long ago have been obsolete. It would be scientifically proven by modern discoveries to be wrong. However, because it was held to, much of it is proved right. Only some of the farthest back events, the Creation story and the earlier aspects of man's development, are strongly contested. Many of the events of the Creation story are accepted or at least possible, scientifically speaking. I actually can't think of any that is impossible, and shown to be impossible by science. They are currently believed to be untrue, because much of the physical evidence points that way (though there is a huge amount of Creationist scientific evidence as well- just check out http://evolution-facts.org/1evich06b.htm), but much I strongly believe is possible.
The second day is largely accepted. Various points of the Creation story which would, a century ago, have seemed impossible now are possible. The break-up of the continents was predicted. The Flood there is evidence for, though not yet a convincing case. The long ages of men I brought up a theory for, based upon the nature of radio carbon and the evidence for its having shifted. I'm not sure where that is anymore . . . somewhere in the old pages. So I don't think the Creation story should by any means be dismissed out of hand. You can continue to disbelieve it, but remember that science is still moving, and much more of the Bible is now accepted or considered very possible than was in previous centuries. Also remember the huge growth of acceptance of the Old and New Testaments, before casting a verdict. Last edited by Lief Erikson : 07-27-2003 at 02:59 AM. |
07-27-2003, 11:43 AM | #332 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
From "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Quote:
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
||
07-27-2003, 11:56 AM | #333 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: I have no idea.
Posts: 5,441
|
Leif, you claim that more of the bible is being accepted? You are mistaken, actually. More of it is being disproven. The only evidence for Creationism is what Creationists create. Creationism is widely believed to be false among scientists. Perhaps the wide group of people you are referring to belong to your church, and that is fine... but be more specific as to what group of people believe Creationism to be truth.
EDIT: one observation on my part... Christians are so eager to present their theory of Creation as truth that they are willing to falsify information in order to promote that theory. I find that disturbing. *picks up stick and pokes at dead horse* errrrr... I think we can stop beating it now. Last edited by Ruinel : 07-27-2003 at 11:58 AM. |
07-27-2003, 12:02 PM | #334 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Lief, you quote two sources.
"Ice Age" -could you give the author?- which states that (presumably) billions of years ago the Earth's atmosphere cooled down enough for liquid water to precipitate; and "Before the Flood" which says that there were Ice Ages over the last three million years, and that the ending of the last of these caused widespread but limited coastal flooding. And you're using these to support a Biblical Young Earth and Noah's Flood??
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
07-27-2003, 03:07 PM | #335 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
"Ice Ages, Past and Future," is written by Jon Erickson, ironically enough .
Quote:
However, I am offering the theory for people to think about anyway. Simply because I can't post my Dad's theory, which I think is much better. "Ice Ages," I gave as a validation for my statement earlier on that I did have such a resource book which said there was a scientifically accepted world deluge. Several people disagreed with me on that point, so I promised to get the source and then return. Some weeks later, I have finally done so . The account in "Ice Ages," I see as a strong validation for the Biblical second day. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the similarity between the Biblical second day and the scientific account of the creation of the atmosphere is virtually exactly the same. Seven Days I personally don't really believe that the days are meant to be taken literally. There are Scriptures which describe God's time as different from ours. Jesus said that he would return soon. A couple thousand years later, we're still waiting. The fourth day was the day the sun and moon were created, and it is written that then the day and night were separated. They were not different from each other, in the past. That implies that the days God uses to separate time very likely are very different from the days that are described there. Then there is the fact that the sun and moon weren't even created until the fourth day, when the night and day were separated. The visibility of the sun and moon was provided partly for our benefit, that we might separate time. So there is strong reason to believe, merely from the Bible, that a different form of time was described. So a young Earth I am not arguing for. The Biblical Flood I provided that theory to offer one possibility that is scientifically accepted. The method of dating though I don't completely approve of either. Radio carbon dating was a frequent method by which they achieved their 5,000-6,000 BC dates for this widespread flooding, but radio carbon dating has severe problems with it. I can provide plenty of evidence of innaccuracy of radio carbon dates, except within recent centuries, where the possibility of contamination of the dated subjects is significantly smaller. However, like RÃ*an, I do have some difficulties with the current scientific stance on evolution, because of how swiftly environment changes. As Cirdan pointed out in an earlier post, sudden environmental changes do cause major extinctions among those species that don't migrate. Environmental changes are one of the theories at present circulating to explain the destruction of the dinosaurs. This doesn't make any sense though, unless you find innaccuracy in fossil dating and state that the dinosaurs only lived for a few thousand years, instead of several million. Sheeana has claimed that my source doesn't provide any of the speedy changes that I have said it does, so I guess sometime I'll have to review it and provide her with quotes. That's something I still have to do. |
|
07-27-2003, 03:19 PM | #336 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
However, as I submitted earlier, much more of it seems possible than seemed so earlier. I believe there actually is evidence for evolution in the Bible, in the passage I gave in my earlier post, and there is certainly evidence for the supercontinent Pangea, and for the second day's description of events being accurate. These facts are important. Quote:
However, I would like it if I knew you weren't generalizing when you say that. The way you state it, it sounds as if you're throwing all of us, including myself, Gwaimir, RÃ*an, and the Entmoot Christians, all into the same boat with a minority that do do that kind of thing. |
||
07-27-2003, 03:29 PM | #337 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind. Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I realize that species are limited by their food supply. However, there were a huge amount of animals in the time period we're talking about. When one species comes into an environment that is better adapted to the environment than other species, generally there are extinctions that show up, and the species spreads until it is unable to spread any further. Rabbits being introduced to Australia was a disaster to the native animal populations. Many species were thrust to the verge of extinction because of the elimination of their food resources, while the rabbits multiplied, multiplied, and continued to multiply. Animals were people's food during that era, and they were abundant. Man was around the top of the food chain, so far as I can see, just as rabbits in Australia were. |
07-27-2003, 05:27 PM | #338 | |
Saviour of Entmoot Admiral
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.)
Posts: 61,986
|
You guys do take from sources that do that often.
Quote:
I say that because it reads much more like a myth than a history book. Not all of it is completely historically accurate, just close. I have read many articles and seen many shows on how many of the things (events, ppl, places, etc) actually did really exist. For example, I remember reading an article on how there was evidence on how the hebrew people acutally escaped from Egypt and other things. I've also seen many programs on the History and Discovery channel on just how historically accurate the bible is. What I got from those is basically that they were just loosely based in fact - some places were off, some people didn't exist, some people's roles in the bible were not the same as in real life, the dates in the bible were off by many years and credited to the wrong kings, stuff like that. I'm just saying, yes, it is found to be loosely based in fact, just don't read it in for the History. You can't read something in it and assume it happened just because some other things have been proven to have happened. How is this different from other myths? They are all based on fact. Oddyssy, Illiad, other Greek and Roman mythology. They include names of real ppl, real places. Are Cyclops real? Are greek gods real? What about Julius Caesar? Based on a lot of facts. Are the dialogue and all events completely historically accurate? No. What does the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, of the bible have anything to do with proving creation? "this event happened so the creation story must be true to" doesn't really work, imo.
__________________
President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares! |
|
07-27-2003, 06:41 PM | #339 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: I have no idea.
Posts: 5,441
|
Quote:
It is not Hindus that falsify evidence for the Christian Creation Theory, it is Christians. (Since HOBBIT addressed the other question, I'll let you answer him.) |
|
07-27-2003, 07:37 PM | #340 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
HOBBIT, there is one thing you have to realize first. Documents that detail history, as the Old and New Testament writers do, tend to be relied upon as accurate unless their is strong evidence against their accuracy. Show me strong historical reason to believe the Bible is not true, if you don't believe it is.
The Old Testament writers wrote with history plainly in mind. Note that in the Old Testament books, they frequently referenced other important books of the period, like the "writings of the prophets," and the "Annals of the Kings of Israel," and the "Annals of the Kings of Judah." The events that they write about are ones about kings that they reference in other historical works. Would they outright lie about historical figures? Would they make up that King David, arguably one of the greatest of Israel's kings, committed adultery with Bathsheba? What specific mythological type events do you have in mind? Jonah and the whale? Daniel and the Lions? Shadrak, Meeshak and Abendego? If God exists, these stories lose a great deal of the likelihood that they are myth. So it is only based upon the assumption that God isn't real that these events are myth, which means you're basing the fact that the Bible is myth upon your own belief that God doesn't exist. The New Testament is even more strongly backed up than the Old Testament, which is why I'm discussing with you the Old Testament instead. Quote:
Quote:
|
||