A Few Simple Questions
Devil's Advocaat
Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
of evolution on religious grounds.
What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
spintronic
<snip>
> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
Hmmm, I guess you could say like 3 of a kind in poker. Broad, but
kinda exacting.
I guess it would be more easy for you to illustrate, the "Non-Kinds"
that breed to produce viable offspring.
I know, give me a "dog-kangaroo".
> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
Your Father & aunt obviously did, or we would not be having this
conversation!
> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
Hmmm. I doubt you could keep up!
noctiluca
> On 20 Jun, 19:14, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
> Hmmm, I guess you could say like 3 of a kind in poker. Broad, but
> kinda exacting.
Right. Rather like observing that someone is fat, but kinda slim.
> I guess it would be more easy for you to illustrate, the "Non-Kinds"
> that breed to produce viable offspring.
Nothing like demonstrating that you miss the point of the question,
and position of the questioner, entirely.
> I know, give me a "dog-kangaroo".
If that's a euphemism for a wedgie, I'd be happy to oblige.
> > Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
> Your Father & aunt obviously did, or we would not be having this
> conversation!
Only one of you is having a conversation. The other seems to be having
an embolism.
> > I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
> Hmmm. I doubt you could keep up!
Yes, indeed, you certainly are an intimidating specter. I can hear
knees knocking all over the group.
RLC
Devil's Advocaat
I see you have merely displayed your vapidity and insolence rather
than actually addressing the questions I posed, why is that I wonder?
John Baker
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Jun, 19:14, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
>Hmmm, I guess you could say like 3 of a kind in poker. Broad, but
>kinda exacting.
>
>
>I guess it would be more easy for you to illustrate, the "Non-Kinds"
>that breed to produce viable offspring.
>
>I know, give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>
>
>> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
>Your Father & aunt obviously did, or we would not be having this
>conversation!
Miss the point much, Sport?
>
>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
>Hmmm. I doubt you could keep up!
Son, you were left behind the day you were born.
>
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:27:58 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
><spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Jun, 19:14, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>>
>>Hmmm, I guess you could say like 3 of a kind in poker. Broad, but
>>kinda exacting.
>>
>>
>>I guess it would be more easy for you to illustrate, the "Non-Kinds"
>>that breed to produce viable offspring.
>>
>>I know, give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>
>>
>>> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>>
>>Your Father & aunt obviously did, or we would not be having this
>>conversation!
>
>Miss the point much, Sport?
No, it is still on the top of his head.
>
>>
>>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>>
>>Hmmm. I doubt you could keep up!
>
>Son, you were left behind the day you were born.
He was born?
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>On 20 Jun, 19:14, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
>Hmmm, I guess you could say like 3 of a kind in poker.
A menage a trois in Genesis? Really? Bring a whole new
meaning to "Swinging in the Garden"...
> Broad, but
>kinda exacting.
Is that sort of like "wet, yet curiously dry"?
>I guess it would be more easy for you to illustrate, the "Non-Kinds"
>that breed to produce viable offspring.
>
>I know, give me a "dog-kangaroo".
So "dog" and "kangaroo" are both "kinds? And you think
crossing them would produce viable (or any) offspring, or
alternatively you think someone *else* thinks this is the
case? I think we're zeroing in on your problem here...
>> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
>Your Father & aunt obviously did, or we would not be having this
>conversation!
Ah, but did *your* parents (whatever they may have been)
have any offspring which lived *and* were able to think?
>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
>Hmmm. I doubt you could keep up!
With you? That would take at least a cabbage; a rock would
probably be outclassed.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Augray
in <qbdo54dbirjrd4fsc...@4ax.com> :
Possibly decanted from a centrifuge?
Steven J.
> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
> of evolution on religious grounds.
>
> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
Ray would answer (if he deigned) that a "kind" is a species (at least,
to be consistent with his past answers -- which does not seem to be an
obsession with him -- he would have to say that). Apobetics (if he
condescended to answer)would contribute more spelling errors than
enlightenment. Adman is too ... unique ... in his views to be worth
worrying about. And I don't oppose the theory of evolution on
religious grounds, but I'll take a stab at this anyway:
A "kind" or "baramin" today is a group of organisms that is descended
from a common ancestral population (on the assumption that the
original Edenic ecosystem was functional, there must have been many
individuals of the same "kind" that were separately created and had no
common ancestors. Today, many "kinds" include several different
species, or even, perhaps, several different genera; it is not
possible to say whether the original "kinds" were monospecific or
whether some "kinds" were created as multiple species that *could*, in
principle, be derived from a common ancestor.
A "kind" is not equivalent to any particular rank in the Linnaean
taxonomy (which is slightly odd: if they were natural features of the
world with impassable evolutionary barriers between them, one might
expect taxonomists to note them and use them to indicate a specific
rank), but most YECs today (and perhaps some OECs) regard them as
approximately equivalent to genera or families.
Each "kind" is distinguished by features that cannot be derived from
features in other "kinds" by gradual modification: at some point, any
attempt to bridge the gap in morphological space between the traits of
different "kinds" must lead through a phenotype that is not viable in
any plausible ecological niche (a structure is so deformed or so
rudimentary that it serves no useful function). This is sometimes
expressed by saying that to cross from one "kind" to another would
require "new information" that cannot be produced by mutations.
>
> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>
Probably not, since the Mosaic law forbids mating an ass with a horse,
but virtually all baraminologists agree that _E. asinus_ and _E.
caballus_ are the same "kind" or baramin. But surely harping on this
point is a sort of quoting out of context -- ignoring that the same
words typically have different meanings in different contexts.
>
> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
I assume you mean, if a male and female are of the same "kind," and
neither has fertility problems (sometimes, after all, a male and
female human cannot mate and produce fertile offspring), can they
automatically interbreed to produce fertile offspring? Creationists
usually assume that species of the same "kind" are interfertile
(although the offspring are unlikely to be fertile), but I think most
will concede that interfertility can be lost, and that in principle
species of the same "kind" may be incapable of interbreeding.
>
> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
-- Steven J.
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
That explains the dizziness.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain--but after eating newspaper all day, do I really
need the extra fiber?"
Frank J
Anti-evolutionist Michael Behe thinks that there's only one "kind."
And he might even admit that a "dog-kangaroo" would be evidence
*against* evolution. If you disagree with that, take it up with him.
Devil's Advocaat
I wonder why there is nothing forthcoming from those I have aimed
these few simple questions at?
Boikat
They have no answers?
*ding ding*
Cool, what'd I win?
:)
Boikat
r norman
Two free passes to the Museum and Family Discovery Center in
Petersburg, Kentucky!
Devil's Advocaat
Will that include air fare as well, or will the lucky winner be
mysteriously transported to the entrance?
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
Hint: The "theory" of ID accommodates all the results of "beam me up,
Scotty."
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Devil's Advocaat
> of evolution on religious grounds.
>
> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>
> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
I wonder why the responses are so long in coming?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<637d0859-5116-477e...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
Hmmm... they have none?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Vernon Balbert
I had the same problem when I asked what Intelligent Design was. Got
lots of great responses from those who did not accept it, but nothing
from anybody who believed in it and could possibly give me a definition.
--
Rule of Acquisition number 22: A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <Em78k.5499$L_....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>):
> On 6/24/2008 4:55 AM, Devil's Advocaat went clickity clack on the
> keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
>> On 20 Jun, 19:14, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,Apobetics,
>>> Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
>>> of evolution on religious grounds.
>>>
>>> What is a â kindâ as described in Genesis?
>>>
>>> Is this the same as the â kindâ described in Exodus?
>>>
>>> Can two of one â kindâ mate and produce fertile offspring?
>>>
>>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>>
>> I wonder why the responses are so long in coming?
>
> I had the same problem when I asked what Intelligent Design was. Got
> lots of great responses from those who did not accept it, but nothing
> from anybody who believed in it and could possibly give me a definition.
>
>
Hmm. There appears to be a trend here...
Devil's Advocaat
Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
of evolution?
What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
to the theory of evolution?
Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
address it?
I await your postings.
Martin Andersen
> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>
John Wilkins
Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Martin Andersen
> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>>
>> Species don't merge. They split.
>
> Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
> speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
How does that work out if species are defined the way they are? IOW. how
can they hybridize if they aren't interfertile?
Ernest Major
<d...@ikke.nu> writes
reproductive isolation between species is not part of the definition.
As you may recall, horses and donkeys are interfertile. If you do more
research you can find observations between many other pairs of species
(for example any group of birds widely kept in aviaries - such as
waterfowl, gamefowl, parrot, pigeons, hawks, falcons, finches - has
numerous hybrids known).
--
alias Ernest Major
Martin Andersen
> In message <4864fa65$0$90271$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin Andersen
> <d...@ikke.nu> writes
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>>>>
>>>> Species don't merge. They split.
>>> Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
>>> speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
>>
>> How does that work out if species are defined the way they are? IOW.
>> how can they hybridize if they aren't interfertile?
>>
> Species aren't defined the way that you think they are. Absolute
> reproductive isolation between species is not part of the definition.
>
less than 100%?
Martin Andersen
> [snip]
Just to expand.
I know that speciation doesn't happen out of the blue, in a single
generational leap (except in the case of some plants, and possibly other
rarer cases). Most of the time, it's a gradual process of increasing
differences in allele frequencies in different subpopulation.
But what use is it to label them distinct species before they are truly
inter-infertile? Hell, what single species has a perfect interfertility
rate between any two members of opposite sex?
Doesn't relaxing the criterion make every single organism its own species?
I know only accepting perfect infertility as a species delimiter would
make a lot of species we consider distinct coalesce, but what other
meaningful choice is there?
Ernest Major
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <4864fa65$0$90271$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin
>>Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> writes
>>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Species don't merge. They split.
>>>> Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
>>>> speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
>>>
>>> How does that work out if species are defined the way they are? IOW.
>>>how can they hybridize if they aren't interfertile?
>>>
>> Species aren't defined the way that you think they are. Absolute
>>reproductive isolation between species is not part of the definition.
>>
>Then how are they defined? 50% reproductive isolation? 75%? Anything
>less than 100%?
The usual phrasing is that members of different species do not normally
interbreed in the wild. However producing the one true species
definition which applies in all situations is difficult, even if you
restrict yourself to sexually reproducing organisms, and even this
definition has counter-examples, such as Geum urbanum/rivale, Silene
dioica/latifolia, Betula pendula/pubescens.
>
>> As you may recall, horses and donkeys are interfertile. If you do
>>more research you can find observations between many other pairs of
>>species (for example any group of birds widely kept in aviaries -
>>such as waterfowl, gamefowl, parrot, pigeons, hawks, falcons, finches
>>- has numerous hybrids known).
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Martin Andersen
> In message <48650a84$0$90270$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin Andersen
> <d...@ikke.nu> writes
>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>> In message <4864fa65$0$90271$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin
>>> Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> writes
>>>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>>>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Species don't merge. They split.
>>>>> Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
>>>>> speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
>>>>
>>>> How does that work out if species are defined the way they are? IOW.
>>>> how can they hybridize if they aren't interfertile?
>>>>
>>> Species aren't defined the way that you think they are. Absolute
>>> reproductive isolation between species is not part of the definition.
>>>
>> Then how are they defined? 50% reproductive isolation? 75%? Anything
>> less than 100%?
>
> The usual phrasing is that members of different species do not normally
> interbreed in the wild.
Danes don't normally interbreed with Australians in the wild. Is the
Danish crownprince producing a hybrid?
Do I come across as being obtuse? I honestly can't see the utility of
that definition. I'm not saying there isn't one, but if there is, it
could use some pointing out for me.
Martin Andersen
> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>>
>> Species don't merge. They split.
>
> Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
> speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
Fine.
Let me narrow it down then. Has any pair of species who have actually
reached a state of complete inter-infertility ever evolved to re-merge
their genepools completely or partially, again at a later point?
I would consider cases of such, tremendously interesting.
Ernest Major
<d...@ikke.nu> writes
We already have terms for the groups of species that are connected by
partial infertility - such as syngameon and tertiary gene pool. For
example the primary gene pool of (bread) wheat is the various forms of
Triticum aestivum; the secondary gene pool those species that can be
reasonably easily crossed with wheat (more or less the genera Triticum
and Aegilops, with around a score of species), and the tertiary gene
pool those species which require heroic efforts (up to and including
ovule culture and somatic cell hybridisation) to cross with wheat
(several hundred species, including the ryes and the barleys, and more
than several other genera). In birds you would end up with sparrows and
goldfinches in the same species, all ducks, geese and swans (except for
the Magpie Goose) in one species, and a gamefowl species encompassing
several families. Among plants wide hybridisation occurs among orchids,
among cacti, and among top fruits; and there's the paper from India that
describes a hybrid between a hibiscus and a cotton.
But say that we do redefine the term in such a fashion. We still have a
problem - are two "species" 0% interfertile, or just interfertile 1 in a
billion times. And we now need a new term of the class of entities that
we currently call species. So why not stick with the current
understanding.
There happen to be several meaningful choices. See John Wilkins' Ph.D.
thesis.
But to remind you of some other observations. Horses and donkeys are
interfertile, the offspring (mules and hinnies) are nearly always
sterile. This is a post-zygotic species isolating mechanism, which we
call hybrid sterility. With other species pairs, the hybrids are
fertile, but the offspring are defective. This is a post-zygotic species
isolating mechanism, which we call hybrid breakdown.
(In some of the species pairs of plants that I cross hybrid fertility is
below 1%, and I think that F2 fertility is even lower. You can see that
these would be rapidly eliminated in the wild, unless the hybrids were
very much better at surviving than the parents.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<d...@ikke.nu> writes
>>> Then how are they defined? 50% reproductive isolation? 75%? Anything
>>>less than 100%?
>> The usual phrasing is that members of different species do not
>>normally interbreed in the wild.
>
>Danes don't normally interbreed with Australians in the wild. Is the
>Danish crownprince producing a hybrid?
OK, if you're going to language-lawyer the definition, add "if given the
opportunity". Isolated, allopatric, populations do present a bit of a
practical problem, but extending that to Danes and Australians is silly.
>
>Do I come across as being obtuse? I honestly can't see the utility of
>that definition. I'm not saying there isn't one, but if there is, it
>could use some pointing out for me.
>
At the moment you're coming across as someone who has a negligible
knowledge of biology.
Species exist (I'm a species-realist, tho' there are people who consider
species arbitrary human constructs), except that due the factuality of
evolution cases exist which lie on the borderline between there being 1
species or 2 (or more). So we have these entities that we label species,
and we want a definition that doesn't boil down to "I know a species
when I see it" (aka the cynical species concept). What we're trying to
do is capture the essence of what distinguishes species.
If you look at living sexually reproducing organisms over time you can
view then as a set of reticulating lineages. It is an observation that
the reticulation is not unconstrained, but is concentrated into
clusters, with links beyond the boundaries of the clusters being much
rarer than links within the clusters. A species is defined by such
boundaries.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
> of evolution on religious grounds.
>
We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>
What verse or verses are you referring to?
> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
female) tells us the answer.
Ray
Mark VandeWettering
Honestly, what is the purpose of these kind of postings? Do you
honestly think that suddenly someone is going to come forward with
something we haven't seen before? Or even more unlikely, that whatever
response you have in mind will convince them of the error of their ways?
I like to bait people as much as the next guy, but how many thousand
times do you have to ask Ray Martinez these kinds of questions before
you just get bored and move on?
Mark
AC
The problem here is that you are trying to take a rather fluid concept and
reframe it in black and white. Interfertility is not a boolean value
(though it can be, look up polyploidism). Different populations can be more
or less interfertile. There are always going to be fuzzy edges. Ring
species, and species complexes like Canus are good examples.
It's rather like classifying planets. To some extent there the definition
is arbitrary. Do we classify planetoids like Pluto as planets? How about
brown dwarfs?
Simply put, you're not going to get a boolean-style species definition,
which is fine, because evolution doesn't require one. Interfertility is a
gradient.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Cj
Agreed. Cut Rayray a little slack, he's a two digit IQ struggling with
a three digit vocabulary.
Cj
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
>> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
>> of evolution on religious grounds.
>>
>
>We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Liar!
You know very well that there are no grounds to oppose evolution.
>
>> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>>
>
>I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
Maybe because your answers stink.
>
>> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>>
>
>What verse or verses are you referring to?
>
>> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>>
>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
>The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
>female) tells us the answer.
Fairy stories again Dishonest Ray.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
>> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
>> of evolution on religious grounds.
>>
>
> We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
>
>> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>>
>
> I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
"kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature belongs
to?
>
>> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>>
>
> What verse or verses are you referring to?
Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
"They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock
according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with
wings."
That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
>
>> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>>
>> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
> The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
> female) tells us the answer.
Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every species
(both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions described
in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
practical problems with the Noah's Ark story.....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
DJT
Devil's Advocaat
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
I am not just aiming my questions at Ray Martinez, but at all those
who seem to have difficultly backing up their claims with supporting
evidence that doesn't contain any references to matter that fall
outside of the realm of real scientific inquiry. Its a simple request,
which should be simple enough for them to answer.
John Wilkins
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > In message <4864fa65$0$90271$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin Andersen
> > <d...@ikke.nu> writes
> >> John Wilkins wrote:
> >>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> spintronic wrote:
> >>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
> >>>>>
> >>>> Species don't merge. They split.
> >>> Sometimes they do. Hybridisation is a well recognised mechanism of
> >>> speciation, particularly but not uniquely in plants.
> >>
> >> How does that work out if species are defined the way they are? IOW.
> >> how can they hybridize if they aren't interfertile?
> >>
> > Species aren't defined the way that you think they are. Absolute
> > reproductive isolation between species is not part of the definition.
> >
> Then how are they defined? 50% reproductive isolation? 75%? Anything
> less than 100%?
There's no magic number. Species may range from 0.0001% genetic exchange
per generation to 100%, and interbreeding can range similarly. The thing
to realise about species is that they are not all of one type. What
works well for mammals may not work well for birds (especially ducks),
insects, arthropods, crustaceans, flowering plants, ferns, or bacteria.
Each group of organisms has a common or typical kinds of species, but
even then there are exceptions, like the asexual lizards we keep
finding.
As long ago as the 1840s, naturalists like Darwin were rejecting
interfertility as the test of being a species. It turns out there is not
set of necessary and sufficient properties that all and only species
have. Instead, species are like a family in themselves: you can see the
family resemblances, but no single member has everything that the family
represents.
>
> > As you may recall, horses and donkeys are interfertile. If you do more
> > research you can find observations between many other pairs of species
> > (for example any group of birds widely kept in aviaries - such as
> > waterfowl, gamefowl, parrot, pigeons, hawks, falcons, finches - has
> > numerous hybrids known).
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
> >> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
> >> of evolution on religious grounds.
>
> > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>
> Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
> You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
> feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
>
Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
scientifically false. I have personally shown evolution to be a false
interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
mechanism to accomplish change.
>
>
> >> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>
> > I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
>
> Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
> "kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature belongs
> to?
>
Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is. Your question contains a
false presupposition.
>
>
> >> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>
> > What verse or verses are you referring to?
>
> Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
>
> "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock
> according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
> according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with
> wings."
>
> That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
>
>
>
> >> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>
> >> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>
> > The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
> > female) tells us the answer.
>
> Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every species
> (both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions described
> in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
> practical problems with the Noah's Ark story.....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
>
> Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
>
> DJT
First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive. It was over
two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
So what are you talking about?
Ray
Earle Jones
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> spintronic wrote:
> > give me a "dog-kangaroo".
*
I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
into a drugstore.
earle
*
Spin -- you're a fucking idiot.
Earle Jones
<0fbe1a28-bc3b-43b6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Devil's Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
> Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
>
> What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
> of evolution?
***
In the spirit of saving those busy people (especially Ray!) some time, I
will provide the answer that they would come up with: Genesis 1:1.
I hope that is clear to you.
***
>
> What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
> to the theory of evolution?
***
Young-earth creationism.
***
>
> Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
> address it?
***
The Holy Bible (King James Version)
***
earle
*
Mark VandeWettering
Isn't this kind of passive/aggressive? I mean honestly, they will hang
themselves out to dry by the stuff they say unprompted: why bother
asking them to stick their heads into the noose?
Mark
Dana Tweedy
> On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
>> >> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
>> >> of evolution on religious grounds.
>>
>> > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>>
>> Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
>> You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
>> feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
>>
>
> Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
> scientifically false.
Who is the "we" you are referring to, Ray, and when did anyone "show" this?
You've made the claim, but never, ever produced any scientific reason to
accept your claim.
> I have personally shown evolution to be a false
> interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
> mechanism to accomplish change.
When have you done this? You've made some wild claims, and bizarre
assertions, but never shown any reason to accept your claims.
The mechanism of evolution is well known. Variation in populations and
natural selection acting on those variations over generations has been
demonstrated in many studies to produce allele frequency change in those
populations.
For examples see:
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evol_3/0,8018,849374-,00.html
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/04/09/news/shaw/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm
Most recently, a study of E. coli bacteria by Dr. Richard Lenski has shown
the emergence of a new ability of E. coli to use Citrate.
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
Certainly you have heard of this, you even commented on a thread about this
study recently.
Why do you claim there is no mechanism, when the mechanism is not only well
known, but demonstrated in many scientific studies to work?
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>>
>> > I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
>>
>> Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
>> "kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature
>> belongs
>> to?
>>
>
> Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is.
What chapter and verse, please. What is a "kind" according to Genesis?
> Your question contains a
> false presupposition.
Such as? Also, the above demonstrates your "scientific" concepts to be
nothing of the kind.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>>
>> > What verse or verses are you referring to?
>>
>> Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
>>
>> "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all
>> livestock
>> according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
>> according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything
>> with
>> wings."
>>
>> That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
No answer, Ray? Are any animals with wings, birds?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>>
>> >> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>>
>> > The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
>> > female) tells us the answer.
>>
>> Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every
>> species
>> (both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions
>> described
>> in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
>> practical problems with the Noah's Ark
>> story.....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
>>
>> Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
>>
>> DJT
>
> First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. Even
creationist authors have acknowledged this. Woodmorappe's book tries to
solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he still
comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. You don't have that
ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
"kind"=species.
> It was over
> two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
Even at 200 yards long, it would still be much too small for the job.
See:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htm
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/insurmountable_problems_of_ark.htm
>
> And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
Even if you ignore the marine species, (which would have been killed by such
a global flood), all plant species, and the millions of species of insects,
the Ark is still too small. You are the one who is trying to claim that
species are immutable, so that there can't be any evolution within 'kinds'
to reduce the number of individuals on board the Ark. Do you have any idea
how many species of land animals there are, and were? There are at least
20,000 species of ammonites (ie land dwelling vertibrates, excluding
amphibians). Double that number (and multiply by 7 for "clean" animals) and
maybe you'd get some idea of the sheer biomass involved.
Then, what about extinct land vertibrates ? There are over 300 known
genera of dinosaurs, some of which were the largest land animals ever known.
How many species of Apatosaurus, Stegasaurs, Brachiosaurus,
Pachycephalosaurs, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, etc did Noah have to make room
for? What about the large Carnivorious dinos? Are Tyrannosaurs clean,
or unclean? Can you imagine trying to care for seven pairs of T. rex?
Then, you have the large extinct mammals. Not only do you have the two
species of Elephants living today, but the dozens of species of Mammoths,
Mastodons, etc. There are many more species of extinct Rhinos than are
alive today, and the Titanotheres (10 foot tall), Entelodonts (think of
pigs, 7 feet tall) and other megafauna. Why were they left off the
Ark?
>
> So what are you talking about?
I'm talking about the insurmountable practical problems with the Noah's Ark
story, not the least of all is the impossibility of getting representatives
of both living and extinct species onto the boat, and keeping them alive for
over a year. Have you ever considered that problem? Even if you only
are dealing with land animals (which would have died out without plant
species) the space available within an "Ark" is just too small.
Then you have the problem of caring for the animals with only a crew of 8.
The fact that many animals require specialized food, fresh water, exercise
space, light, waste removal, etc, etc, etc... has to be addressed as well.
DJT
Devil's Advocaat
> In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>
> > spintronic wrote:
> > > give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>
> *
> I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
> into a drugstore.
And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
Devil's Advocaat
> Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
> scientifically false. I have personally shown evolution to be a false
> interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
> mechanism to accomplish change.
>
On the issue of evolution being false, you have declared that you have
evidence that will refute the theory of evolution but you have NEVER
presented it.
And why is that?
Because you claim it is taking along time to put together a "quality
work" for publication.
If your evidence is so damn good, you should present it to everyone
right here and right now.
Otherwise you will continue to make yourself look a complete fool in
front of everyone in these newsgroups.
Devil's Advocaat
> "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
> > Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
>
> > What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
> > of evolution?
>
> ***
> In the spirit of saving those busy people (especially Ray!) some time, I
> will provide the answer that they would come up with: Genesis 1:1.
>
> I hope that is clear to you.
> ***
>
>
>
> > What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
> > to the theory of evolution?
>
> ***
> Young-earth creationism.
> ***
>
>
>
> > Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
> > address it?
>
> ***
> The Holy Bible (King James Version)
> ***
>
> earle
> *
:P
John Wilkins
> On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> >
> > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > give me a "dog-kangaroo".
> >
> > *
> > I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
> > into a drugstore.
>
> And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
Mike Painter
> On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>
>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>
>> *
>> I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
>> into a drugstore.
>
> And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
>>
I know a woman who is a witch. She can make almost any man turn into a
motel.
(They were auto courts when I first heard that.)
Vernon Balbert
and produced this interesting bit of text:
> Devil's Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>> *
>>> I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
>>> into a drugstore.
>> And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
>
> I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
The hospital I was born in turned into a Scientology building.
--
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-
bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the
road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. - Douglas
Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Wombat
Yes, and what stops such a huge, wooden vessel either breaking up
under its own weight, breaking up under the stresses of hogging and
sagging or, since it was unpowered, broaching to in the massive waves
in your flood and being turned over?
Wombat
Mark VandeWettering
> On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>
>> > spintronic wrote:
>> > > give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>
>> *
>> I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
>> into a drugstore.
>
> And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
I've never seen a man-eating lion, but I have seen a man eating cabbage.
Mark
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0dd66fe4-6a2f-4b57...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 20, 11:14 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> I would like to present the following questions to Ray, Gabriel,
>> >> Apobetics, Adman and others of that body who seem to oppose the theory
>> >> of evolution on religious grounds.
>>
>> > We oppose evolution on scientific grounds only.
>>
>> Yet you haven't produced any scientific grounds to oppose evolution.
>> You've only offered religious objections. Whatscientific findings to you
>> feel are in conflict with evolutionary theory?
>>
>
>Brazen and blatant lie:
From you? Yes, but we have come to expect that Dishonest Ray.
>we have argued and shown evolution to be
>scientifically false.
Liar!
> I have personally shown evolution to be a false
Liar!
>interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
>mechanism to accomplish change.
Liar!
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>>
>> > I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
>>
>> Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
>> "kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature belongs
>> to?
>>
>
>Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is.
Then how come there are so many different explanations.
>Your question contains a
>false presupposition.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Is this the same as the “kind” described in Exodus?
>>
>> > What verse or verses are you referring to?
>>
>> Maybe it was a "typo" and he meant Genesis, as in Genesis 7:14.
>>
>> "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock
>> according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground
>> according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with
>> wings."
>>
>> That being said, do you agree that "everything with wings" is a bird?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Can two of one “kind” mate and produce fertile offspring?
>>
>> >> I look forward to your answers and the debate that will ensue.
>>
>> > The fact that God made Noah collect to of every species (male and
>> > female) tells us the answer.
>>
>> Ray, can you please explain how Noah managed to get a pair of every species
>> (both living and now extinct) into the "Ark" with the dimentions described
>> in the Bible, and keep them alive for over a year? Here's some other
>> practical problems with the Noah's Ark story.....http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
>>
>> Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
>>
>> DJT
>
>First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
So impossibly massive that we know it cannot be real on that basis
alone.
> It was over
>two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
Cite?
The Royal Cubit, which seems to have been the one most used in that
part of the world, is 523.881mm or 20.6252362inches. So, you need to
back up this 25" claim.
>
>And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
It does imply it.
>
>So what are you talking about?
Reality. What are you talking about?
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Devil's Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > > Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > > give me a "dog-kangaroo".
> > >
> > > *
> > > I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
> > > into a drugstore.
> >
> > And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
>
> I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
You got married in it before or after it turned in to a restaurant?
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Tiny Bulcher
> Devil's Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>>> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>> give me a "dog-kangaroo".
>>>
>>> *
>>> I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man
>>> turn into a drugstore.
>>
>> And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
>
> I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band,
I saw a needle that winked its eye.
But I think I will have seen everything
When creationists don't lie
I saw a front porch swing, heard a diamond ring,
I saw a polka-dot railroad tie.
But I think I will have seen everything
When creationists don't lie
I seen a clothes horse, he r'ar up and buck
And they tell me that a man made a vegetable truck
I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable I'll take your word
I heard a fireside chat, I saw a baseball bat
And I just laughed till I thought I'd die
But I'd be done see'n about everything
When creationists don't lie
Martin Andersen
> In message <48651634$0$90268$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Martin Andersen
> <d...@ikke.nu> writes
>>>> Then how are they defined? 50% reproductive isolation? 75%? Anything
>>>> less than 100%?
>>> The usual phrasing is that members of different species do not
>>> normally interbreed in the wild.
>>
>> Danes don't normally interbreed with Australians in the wild. Is the
>> Danish crownprince producing a hybrid?
>
> OK, if you're going to language-lawyer the definition, add "if given the
> opportunity". Isolated, allopatric, populations do present a bit of a
> practical problem, but extending that to Danes and Australians is silly.
>>
you put it really is "do not normally interbreed in the wild (+ even if
given the opportunity)", then it sounds like a largely behaviorally
delimited concept and not a question of biological compatibility. That's
completely news to me.
>> Do I come across as being obtuse? I honestly can't see the utility of
>> that definition. I'm not saying there isn't one, but if there is, it
>> could use some pointing out for me.
>>
>
> At the moment you're coming across as someone who has a negligible
> knowledge of biology.
>
That's nice. My knowledge of biology may very well be lacking viewed
against whatever standard you choose to compare me, but I'm pretty sure
your "usual phrasing" of what defines a species wasn't used at any point
in my education or that of any other Dane. Not in public school, nor in
high school, nor at college.
Quoting from the danish wikipedia page on species:
"Ifølge det biologiske artsbegreb er arten en dyre - eller plantegruppe,
hvor individerne kan parre sig indbyrdes og få afkom, der ikke er sterilt"
Translated:
"According to the biological speciesconcept the species is an animal -
or plantgroup were the individuals can mate and produce offspring, that
isn't sterile."
> Species exist (I'm a species-realist, tho' there are people who consider
> species arbitrary human constructs), except that due the factuality of
> evolution cases exist which lie on the borderline between there being 1
> species or 2 (or more). So we have these entities that we label species,
> and we want a definition that doesn't boil down to "I know a species
> when I see it" (aka the cynical species concept). What we're trying to
> do is capture the essence of what distinguishes species.
>
> If you look at living sexually reproducing organisms over time you can
> view then as a set of reticulating lineages. It is an observation that
> the reticulation is not unconstrained, but is concentrated into
> clusters, with links beyond the boundaries of the clusters being much
> rarer than links within the clusters. A species is defined by such
> boundaries.
Which is why I asked what could also be worded: "By what rarity?"
When does a cluster stop, and a link beyond its boundary begin?
Martin Andersen
get one or more definitions. All classifying objects [planet]/[not planet].
> Simply put, you're not going to get a boolean-style species definition,
> which is fine, because evolution doesn't require one. Interfertility is a
> gradient.
>
I'm not saying it isn't.
Martin Andersen
it sound like the concept is completely illusory. I'm a little shocked
that appearantly there isn't any "magic number", or even several for all
the major groups, that you use in your line of work. As if species
classification is as vague as determining the genre of music and equally
unneccesary.
Is "species", as a term used by biologists, going the way of the "race"?
That "race" would vanish as a meaningful biological term I could
understand, since you guys figured out that the meaningful resolution to
look at these things is at the allele level, but what about "species"?
Ray Martinez
>
> Most recently, a study of E. coli bacteria by Dr. Richard Lenski has shown
Woodmorappe is no Bible scholar, he is a Young Earth Creationist-
microevolutionist (= moron). Where does the Bible say "all species on
Earth"?
> > It was over
> > two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
>
> Even at 200 yards long, it would still be much too small for the job.
> See:
>
> http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.htmlhttp://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htmhttp://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/insurmountable_problems_of_ark.htm
>
Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long. The Bible says
it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
was also 21 yards in width.
>
>
> > And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
>
> Even if you ignore the marine species, (which would have been killed by such
> a global flood), all plant species, and the millions of species of insects,
> the Ark is still too small. You are the one who is trying to claim that
> species are immutable, so that there can't be any evolution within 'kinds'
> to reduce the number of individuals on board the Ark. Do you have any idea
> how many species of land animals there are, and were? There are at least
> 20,000 species of ammonites (ie land dwelling vertibrates, excluding
> amphibians). Double that number (and multiply by 7 for "clean" animals) and
> maybe you'd get some idea of the sheer biomass involved.
>
Total point evasion. We know what that means.
> Then, what about extinct land vertibrates ? There are over 300 known
> genera of dinosaurs, some of which were the largest land animals ever known.
> How many species of Apatosaurus, Stegasaurs, Brachiosaurus,
> Pachycephalosaurs, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, etc did Noah have to make room
> for? What about the large Carnivorious dinos? Are Tyrannosaurs clean,
> or unclean? Can you imagine trying to care for seven pairs of T. rex?
>
There were no dinosaurs on the Ark - you are insane.
> Then, you have the large extinct mammals. Not only do you have the two
> species of Elephants living today, but the dozens of species of Mammoths,
> Mastodons, etc. There are many more species of extinct Rhinos than are
> alive today, and the Titanotheres (10 foot tall), Entelodonts (think of
> pigs, 7 feet tall) and other megafauna. Why were they left off the
> Ark?
>
Total nonsense.
All that was required or needed was a pair that could eventually mate.
There were no Mammoths or Mastodons required.
>
>
> > So what are you talking about?
>
> I'm talking about the insurmountable practical problems with the Noah's Ark
> story, not the least of all is the impossibility of getting representatives
> of both living and extinct species onto the boat, and keeping them alive for
> over a year. Have you ever considered that problem? Even if you only
> are dealing with land animals (which would have died out without plant
> species) the space available within an "Ark" is just too small.
>
> Then you have the problem of caring for the animals with only a crew of 8.
> The fact that many animals require specialized food, fresh water, exercise
> space, light, waste removal, etc, etc, etc... has to be addressed as well.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are engaging in discussion ending rhetoric or being the angry
evolutionist that we know you to be.
Ray
Greg G.
> On Jun 27, 5:08 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
>
> > But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. Even
> > creationist authors have acknowledged this. Woodmorappe's book tries to
> > solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he still
> > comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. You don't have that
> > ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
> > "kind"=species.
>
> Woodmorappe is no Bible scholar, he is a Young Earth Creationist-
> microevolutionist (= moron). Where does the Bible say "all species on
> Earth"?
Genesis 7: 14-16
14 They had with them every wild animal according to its
kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature
that moves along the ground according to its kind and every
bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs
of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came
to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were
male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded
Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
and Genesis 7: 21-23
21 Every living thing that moved on the earth
perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures
that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on
dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped
out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the
ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.
Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
The first passage clearly says "all" and "every" creature. Verse 14
implies that pterodactyls embarked. The second passage tells us every
creature that was not on the ark died.
If a species exists today, it must have been on the ark or it would
have to have "microevolved" from a kind that was on the ark, according
to the Bible.
Which absurdity do you choose? The ark story with 30 million species
alive today or your claims of the impossibility of microevolution?
--
Greg G.
Behaviorism: A large, tender, choice steak, grilled to perfection over
a....
AHA! Caught you salivating!!
Dana Tweedy
>> > Brazen and blatant lie: we have argued and shown evolution to be
>> > scientifically false.
>>
>> Who is the "we" you are referring to, Ray, and when did anyone "show"
>> this?
>> You've made the claim, but never, ever produced any scientific reason to
>> accept your claim.
No answer, Ray? Why not?
>>
>> > I have personally shown evolution to be a false
>> > interpretation of evidence based on the fact that there is no
>> > mechanism to accomplish change.
>>
>> When have you done this? You've made some wild claims, and bizarre
>> assertions, but never shown any reason to accept your claims.
Again, why no answer?
>>
>> The mechanism of evolution is well known. Variation in populations and
>> natural selection acting on those variations over generations has been
>> demonstrated in many studies to produce allele frequency change in those
>> populations.
>> For examples see:
>>
>> http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evol_3/0,8018,849374-,00.htmlhttp://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/04/09/news/shaw/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm
>>
>> Most recently, a study of E. coli bacteria by Dr. Richard Lenski has
>> shown
>> the emergence of a new ability of E. coli to use
>> Citrate.http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
>>
>> Certainly you have heard of this, you even commented on a thread about
>> this
>> study recently.
>>
>> Why do you claim there is no mechanism, when the mechanism is not only
>> well
>> known, but demonstrated in many scientific studies to work?
Yoo HOO! Ray! You seem to have missed this part... Shall I take it that
you don't dispute this?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> What is a “kind” as described in Genesis?
>>
>> >> > I have already answered this question. Why have you ignored?
>>
>> >> Ray, your "answer" was hardly useful, or even coherent. What is a
>> >> "kind" and how do you determine what 'kind' any particular creature
>> >> belongs
>> >> to?
>>
>> > Genesis tells us plainly what a "kind" is.
>>
>> What chapter and verse, please. What is a "kind" according to Genesis?
This one too, you seem to be missing.....
>>
>> > Your question contains a
>> > false presupposition.
>>
>> Such as? Also, the above demonstrates your "scientific" concepts to be
>> nothing of the kind.
Again, Ray fails to answer. What is Ray afraid of?
snip
>>
>> > First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
>>
>> But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. Even
>> creationist authors have acknowledged this. Woodmorappe's book tries to
>> solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he
>> still
>> comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. You don't have that
>> ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
>> "kind"=species.
>>
>
> Woodmorappe is no Bible scholar, he is a Young Earth Creationist-
> microevolutionist (= moron). Where does the Bible say "all species on
> Earth"?
So, you are agreeing that people who support the 'Flood" are "morons", and
"no Bible scholar".
Come on, Ray, you are the self proclaimed "Bible Expert". Genesis 6:19
" You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and
female, to keep them alive with you. "
>
>
>> > It was over
>> > two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
>>
>> Even at 200 yards long, it would still be much too small for the job.
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htm
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/insurmountable_problems_of_ark.htm
>>
>
> Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
Why do you think my uncle has created a website? Incidentally, all my
uncles are dead, and none of them, to my knowledge ever created a website.
So, did you look at the information in those sites?
> Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long.
Yep, still too small to hold representatives of all the species, living and
extinct, much less provide room for food, water, and space for the animals
to exercise.
> The Bible says
> it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
> space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
> was also 21 yards in width.
Yep, still too small. Noah would have had to had a fleet of arks that
size. The websites I linked to point out the problems with available
space. Why did you just dismiss them? You've complained before that I
don't support my statements, but when I provide support, you ignore the
information.
Also, have you thought about the problem of actually building a boat that
size? Wood isn't a good material to build large ships out of.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
>>
>> Even if you ignore the marine species, (which would have been killed by
>> such
>> a global flood), all plant species, and the millions of species of
>> insects,
>> the Ark is still too small. You are the one who is trying to claim that
>> species are immutable, so that there can't be any evolution within
>> 'kinds'
>> to reduce the number of individuals on board the Ark. Do you have any
>> idea
>> how many species of land animals there are, and were? There are at least
>> 20,000 species of ammonites (ie land dwelling vertibrates, excluding
>> amphibians). Double that number (and multiply by 7 for "clean" animals)
>> and
>> maybe you'd get some idea of the sheer biomass involved.
>>
>
> Total point evasion. We know what that means.
Where have I evaded any point? "We" know that your "one line" reply
means you can't deal with the evidence. You are running from the evidence
again.
>
>> Then, what about extinct land vertibrates ? There are over 300 known
>> genera of dinosaurs, some of which were the largest land animals ever
>> known.
>> How many species of Apatosaurus, Stegasaurs, Brachiosaurus,
>> Pachycephalosaurs, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, etc did Noah have to make
>> room
>> for? What about the large Carnivorious dinos? Are Tyrannosaurs clean,
>> or unclean? Can you imagine trying to care for seven pairs of T. rex?
>>
>
> There were no dinosaurs on the Ark - you are insane.
Excuse me, Ray? *You* are the one who is claiming that the Noah's Ark
story is true. I'm pointing out why it's a legend, not a factual event.
So, why did Noah leave the dinosaurs off? God commanded Noah to take all
living things. Why not take the dinosaurs?
Do you deny that dinosaurs existed? If so, why?
>
>
>> Then, you have the large extinct mammals. Not only do you have the two
>> species of Elephants living today, but the dozens of species of Mammoths,
>> Mastodons, etc. There are many more species of extinct Rhinos than are
>> alive today, and the Titanotheres (10 foot tall), Entelodonts (think of
>> pigs, 7 feet tall) and other megafauna. Why were they left off the
>> Ark?
>>
>
> Total nonsense.
Why is this nonsense? Do you dispute the numbers? I can show each of
these statements are true.
So, why were they left off the Ark? If they weren't left off, why aren't
they still around?
>
> All that was required or needed was a pair that could eventually mate.
> There were no Mammoths or Mastodons required.
Hold on there, Ray. You are the one who is claiming that species are
immutable. If you are claiming that "all was required" was one pair that
could mate, you are admitting that microevolutoin MUST have happened,
otherwise there would only be one species of Elephants, rather than the 60
or so known species of Elephants, both alive and extinct.
Now, regarding Mammoths, the last Mammoths died out just 10,000 years ago.
There are Mammoths depicted on cave paintings and figurines by early humans.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hauntedpalace/254294223/
http://vacationdordogne.com/Rouffinac.jpg
http://donsmaps.com/images/mammothfig2.jpg
They had to have been on the Ark, or Noah didn't follow God's directions.
So, what is your basis for your claim that Mammoths weren't on the Ark?
>
>>
>>
>> > So what are you talking about?
>>
>> I'm talking about the insurmountable practical problems with the Noah's
>> Ark
>> story, not the least of all is the impossibility of getting
>> representatives
>> of both living and extinct species onto the boat, and keeping them alive
>> for
>> over a year. Have you ever considered that problem? Even if you only
>> are dealing with land animals (which would have died out without plant
>> species) the space available within an "Ark" is just too small.
>>
>> Then you have the problem of caring for the animals with only a crew of
>> 8.
>> The fact that many animals require specialized food, fresh water,
>> exercise
>> space, light, waste removal, etc, etc, etc... has to be addressed as
>> well.
>>
>> DJT-
> You are engaging in discussion ending rhetoric or being the angry
> evolutionist that we know you to be.
Since I'm not angry, and I'm not "engaging" in any "discussion ending"
anything, you are wrong again. You seem to be looking for a reason to run
away some more. So, are you going to stay and actually try to answer my
points, or just take the cowardly way out again?
DJT
John Wilkins
> In article <1ij922g.200lgg1i6l4q1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Devil's Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 Jun, 01:16, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <4864d0d8$0$90262$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > > > Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > > > give me a "dog-kangaroo".
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > > I've never seen a dog turn into a kangaroo, but I once saw a man turn
> > > > into a drugstore.
> > >
> > > And I have seen plenty of cars turn into parking lots! :P
> >
> > I saw a church turn into a restaurant once. I got married in it.
>
> You got married in it before or after it turned in to a restaurant?
After. It was called "Churcher's", so I could say that I got married in
Churcher's/
John Wilkins
The assumption here is that things named as species aren't real if
there's nothing universally and uniquely true of all of them. I like to
compare "species" with "mountain". Now try to tell somone that this
mountain over here is not a real thing...
>
> > As long ago as the 1840s, naturalists like Darwin were rejecting
> > interfertility as the test of being a species. It turns out there is not
> > set of necessary and sufficient properties that all and only species
> > have. Instead, species are like a family in themselves: you can see the
> > family resemblances, but no single member has everything that the family
> > represents.
> >>> As you may recall, horses and donkeys are interfertile. If you do more
> >>> research you can find observations between many other pairs of species
> >>> (for example any group of birds widely kept in aviaries - such as
> >>> waterfowl, gamefowl, parrot, pigeons, hawks, falcons, finches - has
> >>> numerous hybrids known).
> >
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 27, 5:08 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:926d720f-2bfd-4c82...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 12:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[snip]
>>
>> >> Will you adress these issues, or just run away some more.
>>
>> >> DJT
>>
>> > First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
>>
>> But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. Even
>> creationist authors have acknowledged this. Woodmorappe's book tries to
>> solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he still
>> comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. You don't have that
>> ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
>> "kind"=species.
>>
>
>Woodmorappe is no Bible scholar, he is a Young Earth Creationist-
>microevolutionist (= moron). Where does the Bible say "all species on
>Earth"?
>
>
>> > It was over
>> > two football fields long. The cubit mentioned = 25 British inches.
>>
>> Even at 200 yards long, it would still be much too small for the job.
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.htmlhttp://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htmhttp://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/insurmountable_problems_of_ark.htm
>>
>
>Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
>Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long.
There was no ark, there was no Noah and there was no flood.
>The Bible says
>it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
>space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
>was also 21 yards in width.
So that would give room for what? 1% of the insects?
>
>
>>
>>
>> > And IIRC the Text does not say "every species on Earth."
>>
>> Even if you ignore the marine species, (which would have been killed by such
>> a global flood), all plant species, and the millions of species of insects,
>> the Ark is still too small. You are the one who is trying to claim that
>> species are immutable, so that there can't be any evolution within 'kinds'
>> to reduce the number of individuals on board the Ark. Do you have any idea
>> how many species of land animals there are, and were? There are at least
>> 20,000 species of ammonites (ie land dwelling vertibrates, excluding
>> amphibians). Double that number (and multiply by 7 for "clean" animals) and
>> maybe you'd get some idea of the sheer biomass involved.
>>
>
>Total point evasion. We know what that means.
Who is this "we"?
>
>> Then, what about extinct land vertibrates ? There are over 300 known
>> genera of dinosaurs, some of which were the largest land animals ever known.
>> How many species of Apatosaurus, Stegasaurs, Brachiosaurus,
>> Pachycephalosaurs, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, etc did Noah have to make room
>> for? What about the large Carnivorious dinos? Are Tyrannosaurs clean,
>> or unclean? Can you imagine trying to care for seven pairs of T. rex?
>>
>
>There were no dinosaurs on the Ark - you are insane.
There are one hell of a lot of creationist morons out there that claim
there were.
>
>
>> Then, you have the large extinct mammals. Not only do you have the two
>> species of Elephants living today, but the dozens of species of Mammoths,
>> Mastodons, etc. There are many more species of extinct Rhinos than are
>> alive today, and the Titanotheres (10 foot tall), Entelodonts (think of
>> pigs, 7 feet tall) and other megafauna. Why were they left off the
>> Ark?
>>
>
>Total nonsense.
That is all I expect from you.
>
>All that was required or needed was a pair that could eventually mate.
>There were no Mammoths or Mastodons required.
Why not?
>
>>
>>
>> > So what are you talking about?
>>
>> I'm talking about the insurmountable practical problems with the Noah's Ark
>> story, not the least of all is the impossibility of getting representatives
>> of both living and extinct species onto the boat, and keeping them alive for
>> over a year. Have you ever considered that problem? Even if you only
>> are dealing with land animals (which would have died out without plant
>> species) the space available within an "Ark" is just too small.
>>
>> Then you have the problem of caring for the animals with only a crew of 8.
>> The fact that many animals require specialized food, fresh water, exercise
>> space, light, waste removal, etc, etc, etc... has to be addressed as well.
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You are engaging in discussion ending rhetoric or being the angry
>evolutionist that we know you to be.
And you are, as usual, being dishonest.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Desertphile
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a few questions for apobetics, adman, Gabriel, old man joe, Ray
> Martinez and others of that ilk, and I would welcome their response.
>
> What scientific evidence do any of you possess that refutes the theory
> of evolution?
One sees this query often: people asking for evidence to "refute
evolutionary theory." The problem is that it is impossible to
refute evolutionary theory as a whole. Evolutionary theory is
composed of hundreds of thousands of pieces: to attempt to refute
it would require a large team of individuals working for decades,
and all the while evolutionary theory would continue to expand
with thousands of new pieces every year.
One therefore cannot refute evolutionary theory.
> What scientific theory does this evidence actually support as opposed
> to the theory of evolution?
>
> Finally, can you refer us all to peer-reviewed publications that
> address it?
>
> I await your postings.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Vernon Balbert
> Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
> Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long. The Bible says
> it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
> space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
> was also 21 yards in width.
I would like to address this point you make. Let us assume your
dimensions are correct. Assuming that each deck is of equal size (in
most boats and ships various decks are of different size due to the
shape of the vessel) each deck is 208 yards by 21 yards or 624 feet by
63 feet. (I'm just more comfortable doing the math in feet rather than
yards. It really makes no difference.) This gives us a surface area of
each deck equal to 39,312 square feet. Total surface area: 117,936
square feet. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. This gives us
very close to 2.7 acres of space. That seems like quite a bit, but
unfortunately, it really isn't. Larger zoos have 100 or more acres to
them and this includes what's needed for people to roam around. The San
Diego Zoo has about 4,000 animals representing 800 species and
subspecies. (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html)
In Genesis 6:19 it says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of
every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;
they shall be male and female."
According to the Los Angeles Zoo's web page
(http://www.lazoo.org/animals/) there are approximately 9,000 bird
species, 4,000 species of mammals and 6,500 reptile species. That's
19,500 species. (We haven't even touched on invertebrates or
amphibians.) That means approximately 39,000 animals had to be brought
upon the ark. Now, admittedly, some animals represented by these
classes are aquatic, but these are in the minority by far. But wait, we
have some additional numbers, besides the classes we haven't discussed.
In Genesis 7:2-3 it says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by
two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the
male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
Now it's not too clear what it means by a "clean beast", but if we
retroactively apply Mosaic law to this, there are going to be a whole
lot more than 39,000 animals on board the ark. But let's just use that
number for the sake of argument. (Again, we've totally ignored
invertebrates and amphibians.)
In order to house 39,000 animals in 117,396 square feet, each animal has
an average amount of deck space equal to ~3 square feet. Now I don't
know about you, but 3 square feet is fairly close to the amount of floor
space I take up when I'm standing. I probably take up more when I'm
sitting and definitely more when I'm laying down. Most animals are
smaller than me, but there are a whole heck of a lot which require a LOT
more than 3 square feet.
Oh, and don't forget food! In Genesis 6:21 it says, "And take thou unto
thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it
shall be for afood for thee, and for them." Where do you store the food
for 39,000 animals? Especially all those carnivores which require other
animals. Noah and his family and all these animals were on this vessel
for about six months. Six months of provisions for eight people take a
lot of space. (Noah, his three sons and their the wives.) Can you
imagine what it would be for 39,000 animals?
Then there's waste disposal. 39,000 animals are going to produce an
awful lot of urine and feces. 8 people aren't going to be able to
shovel all that waste off the ship. The air would become toxic and
nearly everything would die if they had to spend six months on a sealed
ship. Even at maximum ventilation the air would not be able to be kept
fresh. You've smelled what it's like at a zoo and they clean those
enclosures at least once a day.
Do you honestly think that any craft built of any kind of material,
including steel and composites, of the dimensions you give, hold and
feed that many animals?
--
Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He round house kicks the cows and the
butter comes straight out.
Ray Martinez
And what does that mean?
Are you a Hebrew scholar?
Until we determine what the original and literal Hebrew says (via
scholarship) we do not know what the claim is here.
> Verse 14
> implies that pterodactyls embarked.
Show me?
Until you do this is absurd.
> The second passage tells us every
> creature that was not on the ark died.
>
Okay....do you have a point?
> If a species exists today, it must have been on the ark....
Incredibly false assumption. Are you saying no new species have
appeared since 3100 BC?
> ....or it would
> have to have "microevolved" from a kind that was on the ark, according
> to the Bible.
>
Or have been specially created. Since evolution is impossible....
You know you think you are in a good position since many YE
Creationists accept microevolution. I don't care what Sean Pitman
advocates, he is wrong and ignorant if he accepts any kind of
evolution at any rate.
Evolution means God is not involved. Now how could a god-damn
creationist accept evolution? Natural selection means Divine causation
is absent from reality. Now how could a creationist accept natural-
material causation?
These questions or points are rhetorical. These creationists are
ignorant and/or confused. If you traverse to Creationwiki you will see
creationists advocating micro and macro evolution! There is no tempo
of naturalistic evolution that could have evolved the nature we have
today since a worldwide Flood in 3100 BC. But that is exactly what the
YEC of Creationwiki advocate by accepting microevolution! Yet
evolutionists, of course, deny a Flood occurred for this very reason.
YECs accept a worldwide Flood and a young Earth at Indy 500 evolution
tempo (= ridiculous). If the Flood happened (and it did) Darwinian
evolution, that is, the accepted evolution since 1859, is falsified in
its tracks. So why do these YECs accept microevolution and not special
creation since the latter is the only way to explain nature since the
Flood?
Before 1859 special creation (immutability) was the overwhelming
majority view of science to explain the existence of species. YECs of
the 20th century are a sorry lot. They are neither creationists or
evolutionists, but a confused and ignorant hybrid. They accept a Flood
but refuse to say that this historical fact refutes their enemy.
Instead they preserve their enemy by accepting the concept which, as
advocated by Darwin, explicitly presupposes the non-involvement of God
- go figure.
QUESTION FOR YEC: If you tout and accept the Emperor's New Clothes
metaphor as deployed against evolution, then why do you accept
microevolution and not special creation?
Of course the silence is defeaning.
> Which absurdity do you choose? The ark story with 30 million species
> alive today or your claims of the impossibility of microevolution?
>
> --
> Greg G.
>
> Behaviorism: A large, tender, choice steak, grilled to perfection over
> a....
> AHA! Caught you salivating!!
I have no idea where you suddenly got this 30 million figure.
Questions for the Evolutionist:
1. Genesis says Noah preserved what God sent him. What God sent him
was called "every" and "all" - "every" and "all" of what?
The then known world?
A hemisphere?
A limited biosphere?
Creatures of a particular forrest?
2. If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth
then are you admitting that the Bible is saying in Genesis 6 and 7
that the Earth is round?
The arguments of several evolutionists presuppose a round Earth in
behalf of the Bible when they describe a biosphere of life of
worldwide proportions unable to be accomodated on a tiny Ark. Of
course you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have what was just
described and assert the Bible to advocate a flat Earth.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On 6/28/2008 3:44 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
> and produced this interesting bit of text:
>
> > Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
> > Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long. The Bible says
> > it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
> > space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
> > was also 21 yards in width.
>
> I would like to address this point you make. Let us assume your
> dimensions are correct. Assuming that each deck is of equal size (in
> most boats and ships various decks are of different size due to the
> shape of the vessel) each deck is 208 yards by 21 yards or 624 feet by
> 63 feet. (I'm just more comfortable doing the math in feet rather than
> yards. It really makes no difference.) This gives us a surface area of
> each deck equal to 39,312 square feet. Total surface area: 117,936
> square feet. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. This gives us
> very close to 2.7 acres of space. That seems like quite a bit, but
> unfortunately, it really isn't. Larger zoos have 100 or more acres to
> them and this includes what's needed for people to roam around. The San
> Diego Zoo has about 4,000 animals representing 800 species and
> subspecies. (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html)
>
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
> In Genesis 6:19 it says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of
> every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;
> they shall be male and female."
>
> According to the Los Angeles Zoo's web page
> (http://www.lazoo.org/animals/) there are approximately 9,000 bird
> species, 4,000 species of mammals and 6,500 reptile species. That's
> 19,500 species. (We haven't even touched on invertebrates or
> amphibians.) That means approximately 39,000 animals had to be brought
> upon the ark. Now, admittedly, some animals represented by these
> classes are aquatic, but these are in the minority by far. But wait, we
> have some additional numbers, besides the classes we haven't discussed.
>
False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
concerning the Ark.
> In Genesis 7:2-3 it says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
> by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by
> two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the
> male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
> Now it's not too clear what it means by a "clean beast", but if we
> retroactively apply Mosaic law to this, there are going to be a whole
> lot more than 39,000 animals on board the ark. But let's just use that
> number for the sake of argument. (Again, we've totally ignored
> invertebrates and amphibians.)
>
> In order to house 39,000 animals in 117,396 square feet, each animal has
> an average amount of deck space equal to ~3 square feet. Now I don't
> know about you, but 3 square feet is fairly close to the amount of floor
> space I take up when I'm standing. I probably take up more when I'm
> sitting and definitely more when I'm laying down. Most animals are
> smaller than me, but there are a whole heck of a lot which require a LOT
> more than 3 square feet.
>
Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
every animal species that exists on Earth today.
> Oh, and don't forget food! In Genesis 6:21 it says, "And take thou unto
> thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it
> shall be for afood for thee, and for them." Where do you store the food
> for 39,000 animals? Especially all those carnivores which require other
> animals. Noah and his family and all these animals were on this vessel
> for about six months. Six months of provisions for eight people take a
> lot of space. (Noah, his three sons and their the wives.) Can you
> imagine what it would be for 39,000 animals?
>
> Then there's waste disposal. 39,000 animals are going to produce an
> awful lot of urine and feces. 8 people aren't going to be able to
> shovel all that waste off the ship. The air would become toxic and
> nearly everything would die if they had to spend six months on a sealed
> ship. Even at maximum ventilation the air would not be able to be kept
> fresh. You've smelled what it's like at a zoo and they clean those
> enclosures at least once a day.
>
> Do you honestly think that any craft built of any kind of material,
> including steel and composites, of the dimensions you give, hold and
> feed that many animals?
>
> --
> Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He round house kicks the cows and the
> butter comes straight out.
The entire account exists in the context of the supernatural. Other
literature tells us that Noah possessed the garment of Adam which God
made for him after the Fall; and that this skin had special powers to
control animals in all aspects. Today evolutionists reject every
notion of the supernatural in reality but insist that animals evolve
into other animals. We know you guys have no supernatural power. We
choose to believe the Textual evidence because it corresponds to
reality. We know Jesus rose from the dead (a miracle occurred). This
is a proveable historic fact. Based on this fact Ark miracles are easy
to believe; and your animals changing into other animal miracles are
easy to disbelieve.
Ray
Ernest Major
<c6c70364-d633-435e...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>
how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 28, 5:02ápm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 6:44ápm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 27, 5:08ápm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> snippage
>>
>> > > > First of all the dimensions of the Ark are quite massive.
>>
>> > > But not nearly large enough to carry representatives of all species. áEven
>> > > creationist authors have acknowledged this. á Woodmorappe's book tries to
>> > > solve the problem by severely limiting the number of "kinds", but he still
>> > > comes up with over 130,000 individual animals. á áYou don't have that
>> > > ability, as you've claimed that species are immutable, and such
>> > > "kind"=species.
>>
>> > Woodmorappe is no Bible scholar, he is a Young Earth Creationist-
>> > microevolutionist (= moron). Where does the Bible say "all species on
>> > Earth"?
>>
>> Genesis 7: 14-16
>>
>> á á á14 They had with them every wild animal according to its
>> á á ákind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature
>> á á áthat moves along the ground according to its kind and every
>> á á ábird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs
>> á á áof all creatures that have the breath of life in them came
>> á á áto Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were
>> á á ámale and female of every living thing, as God had commanded
>> á á áNoah. Then the LORD shut him in.
>>
>> and Genesis 7: 21-23
>>
>> á á á21 Every living thing that moved on the earth
>> á á áperishedŚbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures
>> á á áthat swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on
>> á á ádry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
>> á á á23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped
>> á á áout; men and animals and the creatures that move along the
>> á á áground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.
>> á á áOnly Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
>>
>> The first passage clearly says "all" and "every" creature.
>
>And what does that mean?
>
>Are you a Hebrew scholar?
>
>Until we determine what the original and literal Hebrew says (via
>scholarship) we do not know what the claim is here.
Strange, I thought you held the KJV as inerrant.
>
>
>> Verse 14
>> implies that pterodactyls embarked.
>
>Show me?
He did, further up. Can't you read? It says "14 They had with them
every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to
their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to
its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings."
>
>Until you do this is absurd.
>
>> The second passage tells us every
>> creature that was not on the ark died.
>>
>
>Okay....do you have a point?
Yes, that you are wrong - again.
>
>> If a species exists today, it must have been on the ark....
>
>Incredibly false assumption. Are you saying no new species have
>appeared since 3100 BC?
A few, but certainly not hundreds of millions.
>
>> ....or it would
>> have to have "microevolved" from a kind that was on the ark, according
>> to the Bible.
>>
>
>Or have been specially created.
Evidence?
>Since evolution is impossible....
You do sound very stupid when you claim that.
>
>You know you think you are in a good position since many YE
>Creationists accept microevolution. I don't care what Sean Pitman
>advocates, he is wrong and ignorant if he accepts any kind of
>evolution at any rate.
>
>Evolution means God is not involved. Now how could a god-damn
>creationist accept evolution?
As the fist step to gaining a brain?
> Natural selection means Divine causation
>is absent from reality.
There certainly is no evidence for it.
> Now how could a creationist accept natural-
>material causation?
>
>These questions or points are rhetorical. These creationists are
>ignorant and/or confused. If you traverse to Creationwiki you will see
>creationists advocating micro and macro evolution! There is no tempo
>of naturalistic evolution that could have evolved the nature we have
>today since a worldwide Flood in 3100 BC.
There was no world-wide flood at that time - or any other time.
> But that is exactly what the
>YEC of Creationwiki advocate by accepting microevolution! Yet
>evolutionists, of course, deny a Flood occurred for this very reason.
>YECs accept a worldwide Flood and a young Earth at Indy 500 evolution
>tempo (= ridiculous). If the Flood happened (and it did)
No it did not.
> Darwinian
>evolution, that is, the accepted evolution since 1859, is falsified in
>its tracks. So why do these YECs accept microevolution and not special
>creation since the latter is the only way to explain nature since the
>Flood?
Because "special creation" is a very dumb idea with not a single shred
of supporting evidence.
>
>Before 1859 special creation (immutability) was the overwhelming
>majority view of science
No it was not. Since it is a totally unscientific concept.
>to explain the existence of species. YECs of
>the 20th century are a sorry lot. They are neither creationists or
>evolutionists, but a confused and ignorant hybrid. They accept a Flood
>but refuse to say that this historical fact refutes their enemy.
>Instead they preserve their enemy by accepting the concept which, as
>advocated by Darwin, explicitly presupposes the non-involvement of God
>- go figure.
>
>QUESTION FOR YEC: If you tout and accept the Emperor's New Clothes
>metaphor as deployed against evolution, then why do you accept
>microevolution and not special creation?
>
>Of course the silence is defeaning.
As is the silence of your paper's release.
>
>> Which absurdity do you choose? The ark story with 30 million species
>> alive today or your claims of the impossibility of microevolution?
>>
>> --
>> Greg G.
>>
>> Behaviorism: A large, tender, choice steak, grilled to perfection over
>> a....
>> AHA! Caught you salivating!!
>
>I have no idea where you suddenly got this 30 million figure.
>
>Questions for the Evolutionist:
>
>1. Genesis says Noah preserved what God sent him.
Does it? Where?
> What God sent him
>was called "every" and "all" - "every" and "all" of what?
>
>The then known world?
>
>A hemisphere?
>
>A limited biosphere?
>
>Creatures of a particular forrest?
The whole world.
>
>2. If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth
>then are you admitting that the Bible is saying in Genesis 6 and 7
>that the Earth is round?
Where do you get that idea?
>
>The arguments of several evolutionists presuppose a round Earth in
>behalf of the Bible when they describe a biosphere of life of
>worldwide proportions unable to be accomodated on a tiny Ark. Of
>course you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have what was just
>described and assert the Bible to advocate a flat Earth.
You do talk some rubbish Dishonest Ray.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
He claims "goddidit".
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
>> The first passage clearly says "all" and "every" creature.
>
> And what does that mean?
The "plain prose" would seem to mean "all" and "every".
>
> Are you a Hebrew scholar?
You aren't either, Ray.
>
> Until we determine what the original and literal Hebrew says (via
> scholarship) we do not know what the claim is here.
Do you really mean to say that only a Hebrew scholar can determine the
'plain prose' of the bible?
>
>
>> Verse 14
>> implies that pterodactyls embarked.
>
> Show me?
"everything with wings"
Do you deny that Pterodactyls had wings?
>
> Until you do this is absurd.
Why is it absurd, Ray?
>
>> The second passage tells us every
>> creature that was not on the ark died.
>>
>
> Okay....do you have a point?
Yes, that if it wasn't on the Ark, the story says it died.
>
>> If a species exists today, it must have been on the ark....
>
> Incredibly false assumption. Are you saying no new species have
> appeared since 3100 BC?
That's what YOU are saying, Ray. Remember, you are claiming that species
are immutable? Or is "immutable" another word you don't know the meaning
of?
>
>> ....or it would
>> have to have "microevolved" from a kind that was on the ark, according
>> to the Bible.
>>
>
> Or have been specially created. Since evolution is impossible....
Any evidence of special creation of species?
>
> You know you think you are in a good position since many YE
> Creationists accept microevolution. I don't care what Sean Pitman
> advocates, he is wrong and ignorant if he accepts any kind of
> evolution at any rate.
Ray, has it occurred to you, that you are "wrong and ignorant" as well?
>
> Evolution means God is not involved.
No, evolution simply means that species have changed. If God is involved,
it's beyond the ability of science to determine.
>Now how could a god-damn
> creationist accept evolution?
Because the evidence is too strong to deny.
> Natural selection means Divine causation
> is absent from reality.
Actually, it doesn't "mean" that. Divine causation has never been
observed, but to say it's "absent from reality" is stepping beyond the
bounds of science.
> Now how could a creationist accept natural-
> material causation?
By realizing that most Creationists, while wrong, are not insane. Natural
causation has been regularly observed on a daily basis. How could someone
who is has an at least passing familiarity with reality not accept
natural-material causation?
>
> These questions or points are rhetorical.
They have answsers you don't like, however.
> These creationists are
> ignorant and/or confused.
Have you considered that you are the one confused and ignorant?
> If you traverse to Creationwiki you will see
> creationists advocating micro and macro evolution!
Yes, the vast majority of creationists do accept micro evolution because
it's too obvious to deny. A few creationists will accept macroevolution as
it's also obvious, and they don't want to be seen as either ignornant or
insane.
> There is no tempo
> of naturalistic evolution that could have evolved the nature we have
> today since a worldwide Flood in 3100 BC.
Which is why the Flood is a legend, not a real occurance.
>But that is exactly what the
> YEC of Creationwiki advocate by accepting microevolution!
Yep, because they try to follow what the Bible says in "plain prose".
> Yet
> evolutionists, of course, deny a Flood occurred for this very reason.
Also because there isn't any evidence of a global flood.
> YECs accept a worldwide Flood and a young Earth at Indy 500 evolution
> tempo (= ridiculous).
That's because if you are to use the Bible as a science text, it demands
ridiculous interpretations of the evidence.
> If the Flood happened (and it did)
What evidence do you wish to cite for "The Flood"?
> Darwinian
> evolution, that is, the accepted evolution since 1859, is falsified in
> its tracks.
Since "The Flood" was falsified nearly 100 years before Darwin, that's not a
problem .
> So why do these YECs accept microevolution and not special
> creation since the latter is the only way to explain nature since the
> Flood?
Because they are trying to fit their religious beliefs into a scientific
framework where it doesn't work. "Special Creation" has never been
observed, and the Bible doesn't claim that any "special creation" happened
after the Genesis creation stories.
>
> Before 1859 special creation (immutability) was the overwhelming
> majority view of science to explain the existence of species.
Again, that's wrong. Special creation was never science. Immutability of
species and special creation of those species are not the same thing.
> YECs of
> the 20th century are a sorry lot.
As are the OECs.
> They are neither creationists or
> evolutionists, but a confused and ignorant hybrid.
Such as you are, Ray.
> They accept a Flood
> but refuse to say that this historical fact refutes their enemy.
There is no "historical fact" of the flood, Ray. A global flood would not
refute evolution, but the YEC's time frame would not leave enough time for
evolution to work.
> Instead they preserve their enemy by accepting the concept which, as
> advocated by Darwin, explicitly presupposes the non-involvement of God
> - go figure.
Again, Ray, you are wrong about the "presupposition" of non-involvement of
God.
>
> QUESTION FOR YEC: If you tout and accept the Emperor's New Clothes
> metaphor as deployed against evolution, then why do you accept
> microevolution and not special creation?
Because micorevolution has been observed. Special creation has not, and
the Bible doesn't claim that any species were created since the first
chapters of Genesis.
>
> Of course the silence is defeaning.
Of course, you ignorance is astounding....
>
>> Which absurdity do you choose? The ark story with 30 million species
>> alive today or your claims of the impossibility of microevolution?
>>
>> --
>> Greg G.
>>
>> Behaviorism: A large, tender, choice steak, grilled to perfection over
>> a....
>> AHA! Caught you salivating!!
>
> I have no idea where you suddenly got this 30 million figure.
30 million is a good guess, although the number is probably closer to 10- 15
million: See:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_1.htm
"Estimates of the total number of living species generally range from 10 to
100 million. It is likely the actual number is on the order of 13 to 14
million, with most being insects and microscopic life forms in tropical
regions. However, we may never know how many there are because many of them
will become extinct before being counted and described."
>
> Questions for the Evolutionist:
>
> 1. Genesis says Noah preserved what God sent him. What God sent him
> was called "every" and "all" - "every" and "all" of what?
"all creatures that have the breath of life in them." According to the
Bible.
>
> The then known world?
It says all. Why wouldn't God know about the rest of the world?
>
> A hemisphere?
Did God not know there was more than one hemisphere?
>
> A limited biosphere?
The Bible says "all creatures that have the breath of life in them".
Where does it say " a limited biosphere".
>
> Creatures of a particular forrest?
There weren't any other forests known to God?
>
> 2. If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth
> then are you admitting that the Bible is saying in Genesis 6 and 7
> that the Earth is round?
It doesn't seem to indicate that, but so what? The context of the
description of the world in Genesis indicates a flat Earth, but even if it
was round, so what?
>
> The arguments of several evolutionists presuppose a round Earth in
> behalf of the Bible when they describe a biosphere of life of
> worldwide proportions unable to be accomodated on a tiny Ark.
Again, Ray, are you claiming that God didn't know the Earth was round, or
that the entire Earth is one biosphere?
> Of
> course you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have what was just
> described and assert the Bible to advocate a flat Earth.
Ray, you seem to be confusing some things here. You are the one claiming
that the Bible is scientifically accurate, not the 'evolutionists'. Those
of us who don't take the Bible as literal know that the Bible authors didn't
know about the real size of the Earth, and the full diversity of life on the
Earth when the Noah's Ark story was written. Therefore it's not a
problem for "evolutionists" that the Noah's Ark story is not possible, and
that the Bible implies a flat Earth. What "evolutionists" are trying
to point out to you, is the impossibility of reconciling the Noah's Ark
story with the actual facts of the size and biological diversity of the
Earth.
If taken as an ancient legend, the Noahs' Ark story doesn't need to be
consistent with harsh reality. If, as you demand, the Flood story is
actual history, you are the one who needs to explain how Noah managed to get
all those animals in the space available. Once that's done, you need to
explain the other impossibilities involved in the story.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> I would like to address this point you make. Let us assume your
>> dimensions are correct. Assuming that each deck is of equal size (in
>> most boats and ships various decks are of different size due to the
>> shape of the vessel) each deck is 208 yards by 21 yards or 624 feet by
>> 63 feet. (I'm just more comfortable doing the math in feet rather than
>> yards. It really makes no difference.) This gives us a surface area of
>> each deck equal to 39,312 square feet. Total surface area: 117,936
>> square feet. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. This gives us
>> very close to 2.7 acres of space. That seems like quite a bit, but
>> unfortunately, it really isn't. Larger zoos have 100 or more acres to
>> them and this includes what's needed for people to roam around. The San
>> Diego Zoo has about 4,000 animals representing 800 species and
>> subspecies. (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html)
>>
>
> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
> concerning the Ark.
Why do you feel the comparison is wrong? The facts about the zoos
illustrate the acutal problem with caring for exotic animals in habitats
other than their own.
>
>
>> In Genesis 6:19 it says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of
>> every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;
>> they shall be male and female."
>>
>> According to the Los Angeles Zoo's web page
>> (http://www.lazoo.org/animals/) there are approximately 9,000 bird
>> species, 4,000 species of mammals and 6,500 reptile species. That's
>> 19,500 species. (We haven't even touched on invertebrates or
>> amphibians.) That means approximately 39,000 animals had to be brought
>> upon the ark. Now, admittedly, some animals represented by these
>> classes are aquatic, but these are in the minority by far. But wait, we
>> have some additional numbers, besides the classes we haven't discussed.
>>
>
> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
> concerning the Ark.
Why are the comparisons false?
>
>
>> In Genesis 7:2-3 it says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
>> by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by
>> two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the
>> male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
>> Now it's not too clear what it means by a "clean beast", but if we
>> retroactively apply Mosaic law to this, there are going to be a whole
>> lot more than 39,000 animals on board the ark. But let's just use that
>> number for the sake of argument. (Again, we've totally ignored
>> invertebrates and amphibians.)
>>
>> In order to house 39,000 animals in 117,396 square feet, each animal has
>> an average amount of deck space equal to ~3 square feet. Now I don't
>> know about you, but 3 square feet is fairly close to the amount of floor
>> space I take up when I'm standing. I probably take up more when I'm
>> sitting and definitely more when I'm laying down. Most animals are
>> smaller than me, but there are a whole heck of a lot which require a LOT
>> more than 3 square feet.
>>
>
> Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
> every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Ray, the Bible says that it was to carry "all creatures that have the
breath of life in them". Why are you claiming it did not? Where did
these extra species come from? If you assert it was "special creation",
why doesn't the Bible mention these creations? More importantly, why
would God bother having Noah build an Ark in the first place? If God
could have just created new species after the flood, why bother with the
boat?
>
>
>> Oh, and don't forget food! In Genesis 6:21 it says, "And take thou unto
>> thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it
>> shall be for afood for thee, and for them." Where do you store the food
>> for 39,000 animals? Especially all those carnivores which require other
>> animals. Noah and his family and all these animals were on this vessel
>> for about six months. Six months of provisions for eight people take a
>> lot of space. (Noah, his three sons and their the wives.) Can you
>> imagine what it would be for 39,000 animals?
>>
>> Then there's waste disposal. 39,000 animals are going to produce an
>> awful lot of urine and feces. 8 people aren't going to be able to
>> shovel all that waste off the ship. The air would become toxic and
>> nearly everything would die if they had to spend six months on a sealed
>> ship. Even at maximum ventilation the air would not be able to be kept
>> fresh. You've smelled what it's like at a zoo and they clean those
>> enclosures at least once a day.
>>
>> Do you honestly think that any craft built of any kind of material,
>> including steel and composites, of the dimensions you give, hold and
>> feed that many animals?
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He round house kicks the cows and the
>> butter comes straight out.
>
> The entire account exists in the context of the supernatural.
So, the account is entirely unscientific. As I've pointed out before, the
Noah's Ark story is a legend, not science. You seem to be admitting this
by your statement.
> Other
> literature tells us that Noah possessed the garment of Adam which God
> made for him after the Fall; and that this skin had special powers to
> control animals in all aspects.
What 'other literature'? Where is this garment today? What "special
powers" did it grant to Noah? Did these special powers allow animals to
live without food, water, or oxygen? Did it have the power to prevent
diseases, muscle wasting, or stress that would have killed the animals on
the Ark?
"Other literature" tells us that Peter Parker gained the powers of a
spider by being bitten by a radioactive spider. Why should one accept the
first claim, and not the second?
> Today evolutionists reject every
> notion of the supernatural in reality but insist that animals evolve
> into other animals.
Actually, no "evolutionist" claims that animals evolve into "other animals".
What they observe is that populations branch off into new species over many
generations.
> We know you guys have no supernatural power.
Yes, just naturally occuring ones.
> We
> choose to believe the Textual evidence because it corresponds to
> reality.
Except that it doesn't, as in the Noah's Ark story.... Where in "reality"
do we find any special garmets that control animals?
> We know Jesus rose from the dead (a miracle occurred).
That's a belief. Believing in miracles is not evidence that the miracles
did happen. I believe that Jesus did rise, but I don't pretend that is a
scientific proposition.
> This
> is a proveable historic fact.
Ray, being that I believe that the Resurrection happened, can you explain
how it's a "provable fact"? I don't know of any way to prove that Jesus
rose, even though I believe it happened.
> Based on this fact Ark miracles are easy
> to believe; and your animals changing into other animal miracles are
> easy to disbelieve.
No one has ever observed a miracle happening that would allow Noah to
control animals by wearing a magic vest. A population of organisms
becoming reproductively isolated from it's parent population has been
observed, and requires no miracles.
Being "easy to disbelieve" is hardly the measure of a scientific theory.
DJT
Caranx latus
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that Ray accepts that new
species do show up from time to time, and would possibly acknowledge
that many have appeared since the Flood. However, rather than these new
species appearing because of evolution, they are instead specially
created by God. If God wants a new species of mosquito in the London
underground, for instance, then by God it will be created there by God!
This is all just a guess on my part, but it seems consistent with some
of the things that Ray has been saying today.
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
> >every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>
> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
> --
> alias Ernest Major
The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
creation.
Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
Ray
Caranx latus
Genesis 7:23: He blotted out all existing-things that were on the face
of the soil, from man to beast, to crawling thing and to fowl of the
heavens, they were blotted out from the earth. Noah alone remained, and
those who were with him in the Ark.
It seems clear to me, Ray. Each and every creature not on the Ark was
supposedly destroyed. Why is this a problem for you? I thought you
accepted Genesis as literally true.
<snip>
> 1. Genesis says Noah preserved what God sent him. What God sent him
> was called "every" and "all" - "every" and "all" of what?
>
> The then known world?
>
> A hemisphere?
>
> A limited biosphere?
>
> Creatures of a particular forrest?
It seems clear to me, Ray. The Bible indicates that every creature not
on the Ark was destroyed. What's the problem?
> 2. If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth
> then are you admitting that the Bible is saying in Genesis 6 and 7
> that the Earth is round?
Bravo, Ray. A masterly non sequitur. You haven't produced one this good
in a long time.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>> >every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>>
>> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
>> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
> their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
> creation.
Actually, that's not the "main claim" of creationism. The "main claim"
would be that the Bible is scientifically accurate. There really isn't
anything in the Bible which would indicate that "all species, past and
present" are the result of "direct Divine causation". The Bible says that
the Earth would "bring forth" creatures, which suggests that not all were
individual creations.
>
> Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
> signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
What 'scientific evidence' would that be, Ray? Can you provide *any*
scientific evidence that would support special creation as a scientific
fact?
You have just stated that one needs to be Hebrew Scholar to figure out
the "face value" meaning of the Bible, and the vast majority of Hebrew
scholars don't agree with your interpretations.
When has "special creation" ever been observed? How does anyone know
that your claims are the "right" interpretation of the Bible?
DJT
Caranx latus
> On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>> Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>>> every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
>> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
> their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
> creation.
How does this relate to Ernest's question regarding the Ark? Do you
consider special creation to be a process that still occurs?
> Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
> signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
Can you give me an example of what you mean here? My limited imagination
puts together the following argument:
P1: The Bible indicates that every species is specially created.
P2: The Bible is a true account.
C: Special creation is a fact.
I can't see where you need to introduce science into this at all. All it
would do, in my opinion, is to belabor and clutter the argument. Help me
out here, Ray... why would I need to interpret science to arrive at the
same conclusion?
Earle Jones
<c6c70364-d633-435e...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Ray, according to the Christian myth, either the above is true: the Ark
carried every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Or
New species were created after the great flood.
Which is it?
And, while you're at it, where is the evidence that new species were
created?
Thanks,
earle
*
Cj
Could you try to explain it in plain English?
Mark Isaak
> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
> concerning the Ark.
Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
> Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
> every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects evolution,
Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
> Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
> signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
Literal signal of what? You just said, earlier in this thread, that
Genesis is dead wrong on the matter of the flood.
Vernon Balbert
> On Jun 29, 8:43 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2008 3:44 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
>> and produced this interesting bit of text:
>>
>>> Dana: I am not interested in some web site created by your uncle.
>>> Let's get realistic here: the Ark was 208 yards long. The Bible says
>>> it had three decks or levels. This comes out to 624 yards of captivity
>>> space. This is well over six football fields as you can see. The Ark
>>> was also 21 yards in width.
>> I would like to address this point you make. Let us assume your
>> dimensions are correct. Assuming that each deck is of equal size (in
>> most boats and ships various decks are of different size due to the
>> shape of the vessel) each deck is 208 yards by 21 yards or 624 feet by
>> 63 feet. (I'm just more comfortable doing the math in feet rather than
>> yards. It really makes no difference.) This gives us a surface area of
>> each deck equal to 39,312 square feet. Total surface area: 117,936
>> square feet. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. This gives us
>> very close to 2.7 acres of space. That seems like quite a bit, but
>> unfortunately, it really isn't. Larger zoos have 100 or more acres to
>> them and this includes what's needed for people to roam around. The San
>> Diego Zoo has about 4,000 animals representing 800 species and
>> subspecies. (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html)
>>
>
> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
> concerning the Ark.
Why is it a false comparison? It gives a pretty good idea how much
space just a few hundred species requires. Noah's ark carried thousands.
>> In Genesis 6:19 it says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of
>> every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee;
>> they shall be male and female."
>>
>> According to the Los Angeles Zoo's web page
>> (http://www.lazoo.org/animals/) there are approximately 9,000 bird
>> species, 4,000 species of mammals and 6,500 reptile species. That's
>> 19,500 species. (We haven't even touched on invertebrates or
>> amphibians.) That means approximately 39,000 animals had to be brought
>> upon the ark. Now, admittedly, some animals represented by these
>> classes are aquatic, but these are in the minority by far. But wait, we
>> have some additional numbers, besides the classes we haven't discussed.
>>
>
> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
> concerning the Ark.
This wasn't a fact about a zoo, this was a fact about the number of
animal species in the world. Please read more carefully.
>> In Genesis 7:2-3 it says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
>> by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by
>> two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the
>> male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
>> Now it's not too clear what it means by a "clean beast", but if we
>> retroactively apply Mosaic law to this, there are going to be a whole
>> lot more than 39,000 animals on board the ark. But let's just use that
>> number for the sake of argument. (Again, we've totally ignored
>> invertebrates and amphibians.)
>>
>> In order to house 39,000 animals in 117,396 square feet, each animal has
>> an average amount of deck space equal to ~3 square feet. Now I don't
>> know about you, but 3 square feet is fairly close to the amount of floor
>> space I take up when I'm standing. I probably take up more when I'm
>> sitting and definitely more when I'm laying down. Most animals are
>> smaller than me, but there are a whole heck of a lot which require a LOT
>> more than 3 square feet.
>>
>
> Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
> every animal species that exists on Earth today.
Then how do you account for the animals we see today come around if they
weren't on the ark?
Now you're introducing suppositions that are not in evidence. I see
nothing in Genesis to support your hypothesis. There's nothing there
that says, "And what beasts and fowl Noah could not fit on the ark, God
preserved," or anything similar. It seems rather straightforward to me.
You're making stuff up here. Do you take the Bible to be the literal
truth or not? If you do, then you can't insert your own ideas which
differ from what is written. If you don't, then you can make up
anything you want to support your position, which it seems you're doing.
(If not, please offer citations so I may read them.)
You also ignore the aspect of waste removal. Even if, as you say, the
ark didn't hold all the species in extant at the time of the flood, it
still held way too many for eight people to deal with the waste removal.
Another area you've chosen not to address is that of food storage. Even
if we accept your hypothesis that only some were saved from the flood
there would hardly be enough room for all the food necessary.
Perhaps we should put things into perspective. The Queen Mary 2 is one
of the largest ocean liners in the world. It displaces 76,000 tonnes of
water. It's over 1,100 feet long and at its widest point it's nearly
150 feet. It has 13 passenger decks and carries 2,620 passengers and
1,253 officers and crew for a total complement of nearly 3,900 people.
That doesn't even count the decks required for propulsion, water
supplies, waste disposal, etc. The ark had none of these amenities. So
how did Noah deal with the logistics of just living on the ark with all
those animals?
Oh, and please, do prove that Jesus rose from the dead. If you could
show me this evidence then I would convert. All we have are the
writings of some people who weren't even there. In fact, the scriptures
specifically say that nobody witnessed his resurrection. It's all hearsay.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Wuh, I think so, Brain, but wouldn't anything lose it's flavor on the
bedpost overnight?"
Greg G.
No, but I read English at the level of an 89-year old.
>
> Until we determine what the original and literal Hebrew says (via
> scholarship) we do not know what the claim is here.
Since we can't know what the original language of any book of the
Bible, why refer to it at all?
>
> > Verse 14
> > implies that pterodactyls embarked.
>
> Show me?
>
> Until you do this is absurd.
The end of verse 14 says "everything with wings". Pterodactyls had
wings. I told you which verse to read, so I must assume you don't
understand flying reptiles.
>
> > The second passage tells us every
> > creature that was not on the ark died.
>
> Okay....do you have a point?
>
> > If a species exists today, it must have been on the ark....
>
> Incredibly false assumption. Are you saying no new species have
> appeared since 3100 BC?
See the rest of the sentence.
>
> > ....or it would
> > have to have "microevolved" from a kind that was on the ark, according
> > to the Bible.
>
> Or have been specially created. Since evolution is impossible....
Then what is the point of the ark story? If God was going to
repopulate the earth by special creation, why bother with all the
animals? Why not do it before Noah was born and specially create him
later. Why bother with the antediluvian world at all? Some theology is
more absurd than others but this is really whack.
>
> You know you think you are in a good position since many YE
> Creationists accept microevolution. I don't care what Sean Pitman
> advocates, he is wrong and ignorant if he accepts any kind of
> evolution at any rate.
>
> Evolution means God is not involved. Now how could a god-damn
> creationist accept evolution? Natural selection means Divine causation
> is absent from reality. Now how could a creationist accept natural-
> material causation?
By believing that God is real and thus, a part of nature.
>
> These questions or points are rhetorical. These creationists are
> ignorant and/or confused. If you traverse to Creationwiki you will see
> creationists advocating micro and macro evolution! There is no tempo
> of naturalistic evolution that could have evolved the nature we have
> today since a worldwide Flood in 3100 BC. But that is exactly what the
> YEC of Creationwiki advocate by accepting microevolution! Yet
> evolutionists, of course, deny a Flood occurred for this very reason.
> YECs accept a worldwide Flood and a young Earth at Indy 500 evolution
> tempo (= ridiculous). If the Flood happened (and it did) Darwinian
> evolution, that is, the accepted evolution since 1859, is falsified in
> its tracks. So why do these YECs accept microevolution and not special
> creation since the latter is the only way to explain nature since the
> Flood?
>
> Before 1859 special creation (immutability) was the overwhelming
> majority view of science to explain the existence of species. YECs of
> the 20th century are a sorry lot. They are neither creationists or
> evolutionists, but a confused and ignorant hybrid. They accept a Flood
> but refuse to say that this historical fact refutes their enemy.
> Instead they preserve their enemy by accepting the concept which, as
> advocated by Darwin, explicitly presupposes the non-involvement of God
> - go figure.
I agree with your assessment of YEC, but you throw out the wheat while
keeping the chaff and poison ivy.
>
> QUESTION FOR YEC: If you tout and accept the Emperor's New Clothes
> metaphor as deployed against evolution, then why do you accept
> microevolution and not special creation?
You made that up. It is not in the Bible. There is no evidence for it.
It's adding more insanity to shore up an insane position.
>
> Of course the silence is defeaning.
>
> > Which absurdity do you choose? The ark story with 30 million species
> > alive today or your claims of the impossibility of microevolution?
>
> > --
> > Greg G.
>
> > Behaviorism: A large, tender, choice steak, grilled to perfection over
> > a....
> > AHA! Caught you salivating!!
>
> I have no idea where you suddenly got this 30 million figure.
It's a rough estimation of the number of animal species alive today.
I've seen it many places. I've seen estimates for insects species
alone go to 30 million.
>
> Questions for the Evolutionist:
>
> 1. Genesis says Noah preserved what God sent him. What God sent him
> was called "every" and "all" - "every" and "all" of what?
>
> The then known world?
>
> A hemisphere?
>
> A limited biosphere?
>
> Creatures of a particular forrest?
All of the above. They had no idea that there were other types of
creatures when they told the story.
>
> 2. If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth
> then are you admitting that the Bible is saying in Genesis 6 and 7
> that the Earth is round?
Cite?
Unless you know what the original version said, you cannot make any
inferences as to what it meant.
>
> The arguments of several evolutionists presuppose a round Earth in
> behalf of the Bible when they describe a biosphere of life of
> worldwide proportions unable to be accomodated on a tiny Ark. Of
> course you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have what was just
> described and assert the Bible to advocate a flat Earth.
A sufficient amount of water to cover the earth above the mountaintops
couldn't disappear from the face of a sphere. Obviously, they didn't
have clue that the earth was a sphere. The Greeks had already figured
it out by the time the Bible was written down.
>
> Ray
--
Greg G.
Calculus: the agony and dx/dt.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<5eb66c65-60fd-4ea4...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>> >every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>>
>> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
>> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
>their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
>creation.
You couldn't be any more vague if you tried.
>Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
>signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
What supposed evidence did you have in mind?
Ye Old One
>On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>> >every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>>
>> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
>> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
>their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
>creation.
No, Dishonest Ray, that is just your very daft version of creationism.
>
>Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
>signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
That, as you well know, is a bare faced lie.
There is not one single shred of evidence for creationism - it is just
religious ignorance.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
writes
is much smaller than the real earth. He also seems to be claiming the
biblical account of the Noachian flood is factually incorrect, but
perhaps he didn't mean to do so.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<eci...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
>> concerning the Ark.
>
>Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
>comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
>
>> Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>> every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>
>Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects evolution,
>Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
>
continued to create species since the putative Noachian flood. Trouble
with this position, if it is to account for experimental speciation in
the laboratory, it makes Ray into either an Islamocalvinist
epistemological nihilist, or a theistic evolutionist (but it wouldn't be
the first time he's given the appearance of being the latter).
--
alias Ernest Major
Martin Andersen
> Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
[snip]
>> Ernest Major may say that he's a species-realist, but you and him make
>> it sound like the concept is completely illusory. I'm a little shocked
>> that appearantly there isn't any "magic number", or even several for all
>> the major groups, that you use in your line of work. As if species
>> classification is as vague as determining the genre of music and equally
>> unneccesary.
>>
>> Is "species", as a term used by biologists, going the way of the "race"?
>> That "race" would vanish as a meaningful biological term I could
>> understand, since you guys figured out that the meaningful resolution to
>> look at these things is at the allele level, but what about "species"?
>
> The assumption here is that things named as species aren't real if
> there's nothing universally and uniquely true of all of them. I like to
> compare "species" with "mountain". Now try to tell somone that this
> mountain over here is not a real thing...
I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that is my underlying
assumption or explaining me, that is how you define species?
If you're saying I harbor an underlying assumption, then yes. That is,
if the universal quality in this case is their ability to interbreed,
and not some incidental morphological characteristic or set of them.
We have handy definitions for what constitutes mountains and not mere
hills. The number may be arbitrary but it's still there. How do *you*
decide what is or isn't of the same species?
[snip]
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Ernest Major may say that he's a species-realist, but you and him make
> >> it sound like the concept is completely illusory. I'm a little shocked
> >> that appearantly there isn't any "magic number", or even several for all
> >> the major groups, that you use in your line of work. As if species
> >> classification is as vague as determining the genre of music and equally
> >> unneccesary.
> >>
> >> Is "species", as a term used by biologists, going the way of the "race"?
> >> That "race" would vanish as a meaningful biological term I could
> >> understand, since you guys figured out that the meaningful resolution to
> >> look at these things is at the allele level, but what about "species"?
> >
> > The assumption here is that things named as species aren't real if
> > there's nothing universally and uniquely true of all of them. I like to
> > compare "species" with "mountain". Now try to tell somone that this
> > mountain over here is not a real thing...
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that is my underlying
> assumption or explaining me, that is how you define species?
I'm commenting on a widely held assumption which is, I think, the source
of the mistake. Species aren't defined because they are *recognised*
rather than defined. Think of how to define "mountain". Apart from some
phenomenal quality like "higher than the surrounding landscape", there
is nothing substantive about mountains that is true of all of them, and
only them. What counts as a mountain in a tired landscape like Australia
wouldn't be a foothill in the Himalayas or even the mountains of Wales.
They do not have the same causes, constitutions, or structures. Some are
folded sedimentary structures, some are granite, some are volcanic. Some
are caused by tectonic processes, some by erosion, subsidence,
vulcanism, and so on. Each is unique in its structure and cause. But
mountains are as real as anything - if you have to navigate around one,
or map it, then it's real.
Similarly for species. There's no general definition of all species -
some have a given genetic variance, some are relatively simple. Some
have structured populations, some do not. Some have a narrow range, some
are wide ranging. Some have many stable subspecific morphs, some have
none. Some are sexual, some asexual, some a mix.Some are reproductively
isolated, some aren't. Some have specialisations, some have
generalisation skills, some are forced into specific ecological and
behavioural repertoires, some are individually adaptive.
But one thing that species all have in common - they form clusters of
traits and reproductive lineages. A species is where several lineages
forming populations roughly coincide - genetic lineages, haplotype
groups, populations, and traits. Each does so in its own way, much as
Tolstoy's unhappy families are all unhappy in their own way.
>
> If you're saying I harbor an underlying assumption, then yes. That is,
> if the universal quality in this case is their ability to interbreed,
> and not some incidental morphological characteristic or set of them.
And yet there are a good many species, agreed to be species by all (such
as tigers, irrespective of whether there is one species or nine of them,
and lions, now only a single species on any account) that can and do
interbreed, passing genes from one species into the other (a process
called introgression). In birds, lizards, mammals, fishes, insects and
pretty well every sexual animal group of organisms, there are hybrids
that are fertile. So that species definition, while it plays out for a
great many species pairs, is not universally true of all species.
>
> We have handy definitions for what constitutes mountains and not mere
> hills. The number may be arbitrary but it's still there. How do *you*
> decide what is or isn't of the same species?
Observation. Basically if the populations of a species remain distinct
enough from other populations of near relatives, they are a species.
"Species" is not a theoretical term. It's a phenomenological object
class, like mountains. Definitions are arbitrary, but the objects exist
nevertheless and they are not arbitrary or conventional.
>
> [snip]
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ilas
news:kc0h64dcl7rksmv8l...@4ax.com:
> No, Dishonest Ray, that is just your very daft version of creationism.
Very daft version of creationism? Isn't that like a very wet sea?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, I would hold that its more like saying "very deep sea."
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
"Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote in message
news:M5KdnVTkhJqwgPXV...@gwi.net...
snip
>>> The arguments of several evolutionists presuppose a round Earth in
>>> behalf of the Bible when they describe a biosphere of life of
>>> worldwide proportions unable to be accomodated on a tiny Ark. Of
>>> course you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have what was just
>>> described and assert the Bible to advocate a flat Earth.
>>
> Your last paragraph, as usual, doesn't make much sense. What's your
> point?
> Could you try to explain it in plain English?
Ray appears to be complaining that "evolutionists" are treating the Ark
story as if they believe it to be a true account, with all we know about the
world today, but then those "evolutionists" state that the Bible implies a
flat Earth and limited number of animal species. Ray apparently sees
this as a contradiction.
He doesn't seem to grasp that "evolutionists" are taking the
creationist accounts of the Flood at their face value, and showing the
problems with this view. The "plain prose" of the Bible indicates that the
writers of the Bible didn't know the Earth was round, or that there are tens
of millions of individual species. "Evolutionists" are just showing Ray
the folly of applying an ancient legend to real life situations.
If the Noah's Ark story is a historical account, rather than a legend,
then Noah had to face all the problems inherent in dealing with an acutal
global flood, and a worldwide diversity of life. That the Bible's view of
the Earth, and diversity doesn't match the actual facts of geology and
biology is the point, which Ray seems to have missed entirely.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <5eb66c65-60fd-4ea4-b02e-adc73adc4...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> >> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >> >Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
> >> >every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>
> >> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
> >> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
> >their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
> >creation.
>
> You couldn't be any more vague if you tried.
>
Another deliberate misrepresentation by Jon Barber. The exact opposite
is true. Barber misrepresents because he does not like the stark
implication: the main claim of evolution says Divine causation does
not exist in reality; species owe their existence to natural or
material causation, also known as Naturalism or Materialism (= Atheism
worldview ideology). But this creates another question: why are
Atheists misrepresenting evolution? Answer: They want to deceive
stupid Christians into believing that evolution is friendly to their
worldview so they will accept the theory and be forced to say Genesis
is wrong (which then logically means that *this* God does not exist).
In other words the motive to misrepresent this 101 issue is to make
Christians destroy the Bible for Atheists (= their age-old hate
campaign). The Clergy Letter Project tells us that Atheists have been
very successful.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
This is how we explain the misrepresentation of Jon Barber - Atheist-
evolutionist.
> >Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
> >signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
>
> What supposed evidence did you have in mind?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rhetorical question or point that says no evidence of God exists in
physical reality (= Atheism worldview ideology).
Since all of nature and each organism plainly exhibits design and
organized complexity and since science and the general public has
always recognized this phenomena to correspond directly to the work of
invisible Designer-Divine causation, we can see Barber's Atheism-
evolutionary worldview at work when devising such rhetorical points or
questions.
Ray
Ray Martinez
We could only wonder why you did not post the quote of such an
important accusation?
Ray Martinez, British Natural Theologian, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist, Protestant Evangelical.
Ray Martinez
Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth was
on the Ark?
If you accept the validity of this question and put forth an answer
then you are admitting that the Bible, in the early chapters of
Genesis, is saying the Earth is round.
I think you then should check claims made about the Bible in the Talk
Origins Archive.
Ray
Vernon Balbert
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:31:48 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> False assumption/comparison: facts about zoos falsifies claims
>>> concerning the Ark.
>> Oh, the claims concerning the Ark are pleny falsified already. The
>> comparison with zoos is just to show how absurd the ark is.
>>
>>> Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>>> every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>> Either that, or the animal species evolved. Since Ray rejects evolution,
>> Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
>> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
>> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
>> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
>> exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
>
> Mark: where does the Bible say that every animal species on Earth was
> on the Ark?
Genesis 6:19-20: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every
sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they
shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle
after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind,
two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Genesis 7:2-3: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,
the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the
male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and
the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
I have looked and I see no animals that Noah wasn't supposed to take.
There are no exceptions mentioned at all. It does say, "every living
thing of all flesh," is to be brought on board. Tell me, what is your
definition of "every"? To me it means "all" and not "some" or "a few".
From http://tfd.com/every
eve·ry
adj.
1.
a. Constituting each and all members of a group without exception.
b. Being all possible: had every chance of winning, but lost.
2. Being each of a specified succession of objects or intervals: every
third seat; every two hours.
3. Being the highest degree or expression of: showed us every attention;
had every hope of succeeding.
I'd say that definition 1 is right on here. There are no modifiers to
indicate definition 2 and 3 is right out.
>
> If you accept the validity of this question and put forth an answer
> then you are admitting that the Bible, in the early chapters of
> Genesis, is saying the Earth is round.
>
> I think you then should check claims made about the Bible in the Talk
> Origins Archive.
>
> Ray
--
Rule of Acquisition number 112: Never have sex with the boss's sister.
Ye Old One
How the hell do you work that one out?
>
>I think you then should check claims made about the Bible in the Talk
>Origins Archive.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 29, 8:05 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <5eb66c65-60fd-4ea4-b02e-adc73adc4...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 29, 2:52 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <c6c70364-d633-435e-948d-1163c757d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> >> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >> >Your comments are built on a false assumption: that the Ark carried
>> >> >every animal species that exists on Earth today.
>>
>> >> If the Ark did not carry every animal species that exists on Earth today
>> >> how do you account for their presence on the Earth today?
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >The main claim of Creationism says all species, past and present, owe
>> >their existence to direct Divine causation, also known as special
>> >creation.
>>
>> You couldn't be any more vague if you tried.
>>
>
>Another deliberate misrepresentation by Jon Barber.
Is it? How do you work that out?
> The exact opposite
>is true. Barber misrepresents because he does not like the stark
>implication: the main claim of evolution says Divine causation does
>not exist in reality;
No, though it does say that there is no evidence for any supernatural
cause.
>species owe their existence to natural or
>material causation,
True.
>also known as Naturalism or Materialism (= Atheism
>worldview ideology). But this creates another question: why are
>Atheists misrepresenting evolution?
Are they?
> Answer: They want to deceive
>stupid Christians into believing that evolution is friendly to their
>worldview so they will accept the theory and be forced to say Genesis
>is wrong
Well of course it is - any honest person with a measurable IQ would
agree.
> (which then logically means that *this* God does not exist).
>In other words the motive to misrepresent this 101 issue is to make
>Christians destroy the Bible for Atheists (= their age-old hate
>campaign). The Clergy Letter Project tells us that Atheists have been
>very successful.
>
>http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
>
>This is how we explain the misrepresentation of Jon Barber - Atheist-
>evolutionist.
>
>> >Scientific evidence interpreted aright (face value or "literal
>> >signal") says special creation is a scientific fact.
>>
>> What supposed evidence did you have in mind?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Rhetorical question or point that says no evidence of God exists in
>physical reality (= Atheism worldview ideology).
>
>Since all of nature and each organism plainly exhibits design and
>organized complexity
There is your problem - it doesn't.
> and since science and the general public has
>always recognized this phenomena to correspond directly to the work of
>invisible Designer-Divine causation, we can see Barber's Atheism-
>evolutionary worldview at work when devising such rhetorical points or
>questions.
>
>Ray
You become a bigger fool with every passing post.
--
Bob.