Flood Geology?

[Thurisaz]

A few questions -

 

I strongly suggest you visit and (ab- )use www.talkorigins.org for enough explanatory material to keep you reading for days.

 

That said, most of your points are PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times), and as our dear Neil has nicely pointed out, this constitutes:

[Mr. Neil]

LOL! Yes, my low-budget attempt to make it appear as though Hovind is holding a machine gun. It's bad, but maybe that works in its favor.

 

Yes, CT. You are very predictable. I can detect a Crazy Tiger reply coming from a hundred miles away. Usually when I see lies via statistics (especially when they're Hovind statistics) I know we're due for a Crazy Tiger reply.

 

And I was right. CT's answer was better than mine. Shorter and more to the point. Positive mutations happen in every generation.

[crazy-tiger]

Yes, CT.  You are very predictable.  I can detect a Crazy Tiger reply coming from a hundred miles away.

Better change my deoderant then.

Usually when I see lies via statistics (especially when they're Hovind statistics) I know we're due for a Crazy Tiger reply.

That's because I hate seeing people lie with maths...

And I was right.  CT's answer was better than mine.  Shorter and more to the point.  Positive mutations happen in every generation.

That's a problem for them...

 

Either there's something wrong with their working out, or there's something wrong with reality. (and if they insist on standing by their working out, they really need help )

[Guest Ramona]

Why do christians ask multiple questions in one post?

 

The best way to get answers is to ask questions, right?

 

Why can't they ask one question at a time?

 

Probably a time element.

 

Doesn't it seem like we're being given an examination?

 

No exam. Just questions.

 

What value do our mass answers have?

 

Educated answers have value. Especially when there is a consensus.

 

 

What if anything, are the christians going to do with our essay answers anyway? Enroll us into college?

 

Maybe learn something. Maybe not.

[Guest Ramona]

I don't know about millions, but yes there are transitional fossils. But I think it's necessary to point out that the creationists have an extremely distorted idea of what a transitional fossil is. Creationists expect a smooth, seamless morphology of fossils, which no biologist expects to find. Things don't literally evolve like that. It would be like demanding to see a record of fossils that smoothly show the transition from a wolf to a chiwawa.

 

I see what you mean.

 

Because they didn't fall? I could just as easily ask you why standing petrified trees are usually preserved with their root systems petrified in the rock as well.

 

Maybe because they were uprooted and waterlogged. If it happened gradually, wouldn't there be some sort of decay.

 

Dubious assertion. Find the reference from which you got that and what work they did to come to that conclusion, and then maybe we'll talk about it.

 

Regarding the helium in the atmosphere and carbon 14. I took notes from a presentation given by Dr. Gary Parker in which he stated that. He was once an evolutionist who examined the evidence and came to a different conclusion after several years.

 

Maybe someone has a better analogy that than, but I think this demonstrates the blatant errors that creationists make when talking about evolution.

 

Maybe creationists need to get up-to-date on the evolving nature of the evolutionary theory. I don't mean that in a sarcastic manner.

 

 

Mr. Neil,

 

I appreciate your time. But, I was thinking of the relation of apes and humans. Neither produce vitamin-C although every other plant and animal does. First, wouldn't this be a negative thing.

 

And...

 

Secondly I was wondering...and I am being totally serious when I ask. It may be another ignorant question, but...

 

Could apes and humans procreate?

 

Another question I had since my high school days...

 

If apes evolved into humans, why do apes still exist?

 

 

Crazy Tiger,

 

When I think of your screen name, I next think of "hidden dragon". :-)

 

But, everything I posed was what I heard from Dr. Gary Parker. Not Kent Hovind. I see you and him don't get along very well.;-/

 

Thank you for your time responding to me as well.

[Guest Ramona]

Just to be clear. I don't in any way think that a supernatural God/god can be proven nor disproven by natural means because I found a nice bit of information that changed my thinking.

 

It spoke of "black matter" in space. With which, if you add up all the energy in the universe it equals zero (something to that effect). And, there is a theistic argument that says that the universe is made up of energy therefore it took "energy" to make it come into being. Well, if the energy of the universe equals zero, it wouldn't have needed any energy for a cause to come into being.

 

It would be like the finite defining the infinite. Impossible.

 

Hey crazy tiger! What gods have been proven to exist?

[Valgeir]

Maybe because they were uprooted and waterlogged. If it happened gradually, wouldn't there be some sort of decay.

 

Petrification is always a gradual process, and none of the petrified trees I've ever seen have been deteriorated in any significant way.

[Flyby Stardancer]

Could apes and humans procreate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who knows? But we won't find out because it would be too immoral. Would the child (if it could be created) be more ape or more human? How could it be raised? As both apes (mostly) and humans are social creatures who stay with those that look like themselves and don't particularly care for those that don't (as a way of not procreating with those of other species), the child would be deprived of those "like him/her". It would have a completely rotten existance, and thus it would be immoral to even attempt to create one.

 

If apes evolved into humans, why do apes still exist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Branching evolution. A population of Species A was split into two groups. One evolved into Species B due to new habitat requirements. The other stayed in the old habitat, and thus didn't evolve into a new species. Or Species A could be thrown into a new and different habitat, and evolve into Species C.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Another question I had since my high school days...

 

If apes evolved into humans, why do apes still exist?

 

 

Because humans didn't evolve from apes, they both evolved from a similiar branch of the tree from what I've heard lately. Kind of like two humans marrying and having two kids; one who resembles one parent, but not the other, and likewise, and following their separate lines. They're similiar, but they're also different enough after a time to no longer be close family, but far-flung cousins.

[Mr. Neil]

Maybe because they were uprooted and waterlogged. If it happened gradually, wouldn't there be some sort of decay.

Oh no no no no... Valgeir already provided an excellent reply to this, but I'm going to answer more in detail.

 

First of all, the trees that I'm referring to are out in Yellowstone, and they didn't just die and become petrified. They were buried by volcanic ash. A layer of vocanic ash which blocks the soil from open air is all you need to inhibit a rotting tree. In case you didn't know, Trees and other liviving organisms that live in the ground (including microorganisms), need air to survive first and foremost.

 

In fact, this happens again and again in Yellowstone. YOu can see quite clearly that there's a pattern of volcanic activity. 27 unique forests have been buried on top of each other with a distinct layer of ash in between them. The only intelligent way to interpret this is for trees to grow, the volcano to erupt, the ash to bury and kill the trees, for the forest to return, and for the cycle to repeat.

 

Besides, the telling sign is that the trees are standing upright. UPRIGHT! In flood water, what happens to trees? Like everything else on water, they seek their own level and therefore LAY ON THEIR SIDE. The trees in Yellowstone are upright, planted in the ground, and petrified.

 

 

Regarding the helium in the atmosphere and carbon 14. I took notes from a presentation given by Dr. Gary Parker in which he stated that. He was once an evolutionist who examined the evidence and came to a different conclusion after several years.

Ramona, I asked for a reference and some work. This tells me nothing. I'm not going to do your homework for you. This is still a dubious claim.

 

Besides, it seems that Crazy Tiger has already answered for me.

 

 

Maybe creationists need to get up-to-date on the evolving nature of the evolutionary theory.

Creationists need to learn that all theories in science are subject to change. That's the way of science.

 

Ray Comfort, Christian author and world's second-dumbest apologist, once attacked the proponents of evolution, saying that they were afraid of "unchanging scientific facts". This is a common objection I hear from creationists, and it only proves that they don't understand science.

 

 

I appreciate your time. But, I was thinking of the relation of apes and humans. Neither produce vitamin-C although every other plant and animal does. First, wouldn't this be a negative thing.

No one said that there weren't negative mutations. Yes it's a negative thing, but you're missing the point. The point is that both humans and apes have the the same nonfunctioning gene.

 

If you have the same broken gene in different species, what does that tell you Ramona?

 

 

Could apes and humans procreate?

The question should be if humans and chimps can procreate. Considering how close we are molecularly, I would certainly think that it's in the realm of possibility.

 

 

If apes evolved into humans, why do apes still exist?

Because evolution occurs when a species needs to adapt to an environment. If one group of apes evolved , there's nothing that says that thet the group it broke off from also has to evolve in the same way or at all.

 

Second, modern apes are not our ancestors. All animals on Earth today are modern species.

 

 

Just to be clear. I don't in any way think that a supernatural God/god can be proven nor disproven by natural means because I found a nice bit of information that changed my thinking.

Actually, I'm going to head you right off at the pass. Since the word "God" is negatively defined, there can be no such being a "god". Spiritual. Supernatural. Infinite. These words don't mean anything. They lack coherency. These werds bascially tell us what God is not. He is not material, he's above nature, and he's not finite.

 

These are meaningless. There can be no such thing as a god.

[Eponymic]

Just to be clear. I don't in any way think that a supernatural God/god can be proven nor disproven by natural means because I found a nice bit of information that changed my thinking.

 

And yet you decide to believe in one?

 

It spoke of "black matter" in space. With which, if you add up all the energy in the universe it equals zero (something to that effect). And, there is a theistic argument that says that the universe is made up of energy therefore it took "energy" to make it come into being. Well, if the energy of the universe equals zero, it wouldn't have needed any energy for a cause to come into being.

 

This is yet another thing that we don't have enough information on to prove or disprove. So it's nothing but speculation right now.

 

It would be like the finite defining the infinite. Impossible.

 

Isn't that what the Bible tries to do?

 

Hey crazy tiger! What gods have been proven to exist?

 

None. So again, why would you persist in believing that one definitely exists when there is no definitive evidence to give a supernatural being any kind of definition & way to understand it.

 

All we have is circumstancial evidence & proof. There are signs that energies & forces affect us, but we don't even have a strong grasp on those. So having a belief based merely on a plagiarized book written by power hungry men is what you're left with if you believe in Christianity.

[crazy-tiger]

Crazy Tiger,

 

When I think of your screen name, I next think of "hidden dragon". :-)

Interesting... I'd not made that connection. Though I can guarantee that I can't do massize leaps and run up the side of trees

But, everything I posed was what I heard from Dr. Gary Parker. Not Kent Hovind. I see you and him don't get along very well.;-/

Dr Gary Parker... He's with AnswersInGenesis. Considering that AIG works on the "Come to a conclusion, then find evidence to fit (or make stuff up if you can't find anything) while ignoring anything that shows we're wrong" method of "science" I put as much weight on his work as I do Kent Hovind.

 

A short list of those who are KNOWN to twist the truth...

AIG, ICS, Jason Gastrich, Kent Hovind.

Using anything from any of them is guaranteed to be demolished within seconds. (and have ridicule poured upon it)

Thank you for your time responding to me as well.

Quite welcome.

Hey crazy tiger! What gods have been proven to exist?

Heh...

 

Right this moment, none.

[chefranden]

The earth's population is currently at approx 6 B people.  We know that the tendancy for humans, as with most organisms is to reproduce geometrically. With the rate of growth we've experience since we started keeping count there is no way we would only be at 6 billion in the 30 millions years or so we've been around. We'd be at more like 6 trillion. And its not due to over population we could fit the entire poplation of the earth in Charleston South Carolina.

 

 

 

Any species that experiences an increase in it's food supplies will increase in population unless some disaster intervenes. Totalitarian agriculture has provided that increase in food for humans. While humans (homo sapiens) have been on earth for 100,000 plus years. Totalitarian agriculture as an idea has only been around 8,000 or so years, and has only become the dominant way of life in the last 1000 years, and more recently helped along by the industrial revolution and the green revolution. Before that our population was stable because the food supply was stable.