Evolution, Dinosaur to bird transitionary fossil discovered~

[Tikker]

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive

That point might be a hard sell to a theoretically "neutral" observer of the majority of proponents on either side.

What's your point?

[Ganzo]

Rust you missed my point. Weather flood hapened or not, or was it local event or world wide, is not what i was talking about.
Explain to me how

a bunch of herder tribesmen who didn't know much about the sea

knew enough about naval engeneering to describe in detail how to build a giant ship that is engeneeringly correct. Another coincidence?

As far as

How is the knowledge of all the shiznat that happened prior to Noah retained?
everyone but Noah and his homies was killed, no?

So, did Noah have all the history of the world prior to noah written out already?

It's in the book you despise. Says God told Moses what to right in the Bible.

[Lyion]

Unless you see the nail marks in his hands and put your hand into his side, you will not believe it, eh?

It's not my job to 'prove' anything to you. I am not evangelical, nor do I wish to force what I believe on others but at the same time I do not have any problems discussing faith or beliefs. Even to bitter cynical religion haters such as Rust.

[Rust]

For your encoure, Rust, will you explain how science proves that Jesus didn't multiply loaves and fish.



That was a good link, though, even if your assinine comments were on par for the course.

You have a fundamentally anti-science, pro-faith metaphysical viewpoint. I understand that. You're basically between Mindia and me on the scale.

Again, if people want to believe in the Deluge, that's their right, just like they can believe in aliens at Roswell or Elvis living in Dubuque. I don't care, it doesn't bother me in the least.

But don't try and pretend there's any actual geological evidence for a global Flood, because it's been clear since the 19th Century that there isn't. The geologists who figured it out happened to include quite a few devout Anglican clergymen like Sedgewick. They all agreed, while creating the field of Geology, that the Flood didn't happen.

--R.

[Lyion]

I love Physics and Math. I have a math degree. I am a problem solver at work. I moderately keep up with whats going on in science, although I can't claim to be up to snuff on usenet newsgroup happenings since around 1995.

Your comments and disdain for anything faith related have been revealed, and you indeed are cynical and nasty to anything that requires any sort of belief.

Thats fine. I've seen your type often and you are merely a more verbose version of a science evangelist, trying hard to show your knowledge of facts in your faith without science as surely as the biggest evangelist.

[Rust]

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive

That point might be a hard sell to a theoretically "neutral" observer of the majority of proponents on either side.

If by 'creationism' you want to say God created the Earth and all life on it, it doesn't conflict in the least with evolution, since evolution doesn't answer 'how did life arise on Earth' or 'where did the earth come from'. It's entirely possible that God created all life on Earth, using a process that looks like life evolved over time. I don't know anyone outside a few frothing atheist types who absolutely reject the possible existance of any God, who have issues with that.

If by 'Creationism' you mean a belief in an Earth some 10,000 years old, with each life form created ex nihilo by God, and a Deluge that killed off everyone some few thousand years ago? That particular form of belief is clearly contradicted by evolution, as well as by geology, unless you fall into the vaguely heretical idea that God made the world with an appearance of age as some kind of joke or test. And where faith runs against actual physical reality, I fall on the side of 'well, obviously that particular belief is somehow in error'.

--R.

[Tikker]

It's in the book you despise. Says God told Moses what to right in the Bible.

Who says i despise the bible?
I'm pretty sure I've never made the claim


ps, dig out the quote where God tells moses what to write (i'm not being obtuse, I'm just curious)

[Rust]

Rust you missed my point. Weather flood hapened or not, or was it local event or world wide, is not what i was talking about.
Explain to me how

a bunch of herder tribesmen who didn't know much about the sea

knew enough about naval engeneering to describe in detail how to build a giant ship that is engeneeringly correct. Another coincidence?

Well, the particular naval architects had no idea how the ark was built, so they assume it used modern designs. You did actually read the article, right? I did.

Structural Safety
General

Since little information on the internal structures of the Ark are known, we made the following estimation from the viewpoint of modern shipbuilding technology, although we assume that the Ark was in fact built using relatively ancient technology.

At that time, trees might have grown taller than 10 metres, and their diameters may have been larger than 1 metre as a result of the presumed more favourable natural environment. A tree could have weighed about 5 tonnes. About 800 trees might thus have been required to build the Ark, if the wood weight of the Ark were about 4,000 tonnes.

So they admit they have no idea how the ark was built, but using modern shipbuilding techniques, and assuming some unknown reason that trees would be taller and thicker because some presumed natural environment existed they don't specify.

Then they make more assumptions about the weight - the barge form they use displaces about 42000 tons, and they assume it was half out of the water , with a displacement of 21000 tons. Of that some 4000 tons was wood, and the rest would be cargo.

John Woodmorappe, a Creationist, estimated that there were some 5500 tons of living animals on the ark. If each of these animals ate 1/30 their body mass per day in feed, Noah would need 1/30*5500 - 183 tons of food per day to feed them. That's some 66000 tons of food over a year, making ship plus animals plus food displace some 76,000 tons. Not bad for a ship that only displaced 21000 tons by your article's claim.

The ark in the article would have sunk like a stone once loaded. Only a bunch of herdsmen *could* have thought it would float without divine intervention.

link to discussion of boat design

--R.

[Ganzo]

It's in the book you despise. Says God told Moses what to right in the Bible.

Who says i despise the bible?
I'm pretty sure I've never made the claim


ps, dig out the quote where God tells moses what to write (i'm not being obtuse, I'm just curious)

Exodus 24

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

[Ganzo]

Rust you missed my point. Weather flood hapened or not, or was it local event or world wide, is not what i was talking about.
Explain to me how

a bunch of herder tribesmen who didn't know much about the sea

knew enough about naval engeneering to describe in detail how to build a giant ship that is engeneeringly correct. Another coincidence?

Well, the particular naval architects had no idea how the ark was built, so they assume it used modern designs. You did actually read the article, right? I did.

Structural Safety
General

Since little information on the internal structures of the Ark are known, we made the following estimation from the viewpoint of modern shipbuilding technology, although we assume that the Ark was in fact built using relatively ancient technology.

At that time, trees might have grown taller than 10 metres, and their diameters may have been larger than 1 metre as a result of the presumed more favourable natural environment. A tree could have weighed about 5 tonnes. About 800 trees might thus have been required to build the Ark, if the wood weight of the Ark were about 4,000 tonnes.

So they admit they have no idea how the ark was built, but using modern shipbuilding techniques, and assuming some unknown reason that trees would be taller and thicker because some presumed natural environment existed they don't specify.

Then they make more assumptions about the weight - the barge form they use displaces about 42000 tons, and they assume it was half out of the water , with a displacement of 21000 tons. Of that some 4000 tons was wood, and the rest would be cargo.

John Woodmorappe, a Creationist, estimated that there were some 5500 tons of living animals on the ark. If each of these animals ate 1/30 their body mass per day in feed, Noah would need 1/30*5500 - 183 tons of food per day to feed them. That's some 66000 tons of food over a year, making ship plus animals plus food displace some 76,000 tons. Not bad for a ship that only displaced 21000 tons by your article's claim.

The ark in the article would have sunk like a stone once loaded. Only a bunch of herdsmen *could* have thought it would float without divine intervention.

link to discussion of boat design

--R.

Genesis 7

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

Where does it say he brought food for them

[Aavar]

Dinosaurs are not reptiles.

[Darcler]

They didnt need to bring food. That's why there were seven of each. DUH~

[Zanathar]

[quote="Harrison"]I don't see anything amazing here at all. This was 65 million years ago. For all we know the dinosaur was fossilized on top of some other animal's eggs.

[quote]

Not possible.

Why? All about the laws of superpositioning. IE: The objects on top of things are older than the objects below them.

Well, if this is so then that raises a few other questions, IE: Why couldnt the dinosaur fallen on top of the eggs? That one is easy: Because if a dead dinosaur (or anything really) fell on top of some eggs the eggs would be crushed. No? You go fall on an egg and find out.

Ok, so, the eggs were surrounded by the vertibrate: Well, what we know of superpositioning indicates that the eggs and dinosaur would have been deposited either at the same time or close to it. Now it is possible that the eggs were deposited into the pelvic region of a dead dinosaur, and then quickly buried and forgotten. Of course... if they were quickly buried then the eggs would have been broken (because they were not protected) and if you use the nest was in a pelvis arguement then you have to ask: If the eggs survived, the bones survived: Why didnt the nest survive? There is no nest.

So, we know now that the eggs were not placed on the ground in the pelvic bones of a dinosaur by an errant mother looking for a nest, we know that the dinosaur didnt land on top of the eggs so that leaves us with the logical conclusion (since we know the pelvis is female) that the eggs must have been inside the dinosaur when the dinosaur died, the subsequent buring of the remains which lead to fossilization was fast enough to insure the survival and we know that the survive the quickness of the burial that the eggs had to be protected (IE inside the mother at the time).

We also know that the eggs didnt get fossilized earlier than the dinosaur and then wind up in the same pelvic region because the minerals and process of fossilization were exactly alike, so we know that the fossilization of both happened at the same time. So: The pelvis had the eggs inside her, the eggs are 1 to 2 and are hard and we can identify the dinosaur.

Now, we add on what we suspect of birds, etc...

And now we have a very strong link of the evolution of birds from Dinosaurs.

Is it conclusive? No, it never will be. Why? Because of the time involved. We are dealing in epochs here, not centuries. However, based on what we know, we can figure out what was and maybe what will be.

Masters of Geology Degree here.

[Arlos]

We also DO have evidence for changes within a species to better fit its role. Go look at the T-Rex Horner excavated recently, that he used to support his theory about T-Rex being primarily a scavenger.

From what I heard/saw, it is possible to figure out how fast an animal (or at least a bipedal animal) would run by comparing length of thigh to length of shin. Fast moving creatures like, say, the modern ostrich, have short thighs and really long shins. The T-Rex, however, in the most recent fossils have thigh length almost identical to shin length, indicating it was built for efficient long-distance walking. (much like humans, actually)

Horner went and found a T-Rex skeleton about 3 million years older than the other ones that had been found, and did the same sort of measurement. He found that the oldest T-rex had a different ratio, in that it's thigh was actually markedly shorter than the shin. This then shows that T-Rex, over the lifespan of the species, continued to evolve away from fast running and more and more towards efficient walking.

As for the Flood myth, last I read about that, the most current theory is that it's a preserved account of what happened when the Mediterranean broke through the Bosporus strait and flooded into what's now the Black Sea, which was a large freshwater inland lake/sea before that. Work has been done at the lake bottom, showing an ancient shoreline with remains of freshwater animals.

-Arlos

[mofish]

Secondly, with the millions upon millions of species of animal on this planet - the Ark would have had to have been so large it would have crushed itself under it's own weight.

Actualy a naval engeneer did a ship design based on numbers from the bible to, create a project for a Noah's Ark, When drafts were completed he sent them to other engeneer and US patent office saying it was new freighter design. It passed all the tests and said to be fully workable.

Yeah, made of magic gopher wood, which would be stronger than steel, sure he did.

The ark as described in the Bible would have foundered and sunk. The whole world was covered in water - any idea what sort of storm you'd get with a 12000 mile fetch? How much twisting in the beams you'd have,and how much water would get in? The ark was 300 cubits long - some 150 feet longer than the biggest wooden ship ever built in modern times. Somehow Noah, a shepherd from Judea, managed to build a ship that was more seaworthy than anything the British or anyone else managed to construct, out of some unknown magic gopher wood, without any prior experience in building large ships. And then 8 people managed to pump all the water out of the bilges and feed untold thousands of animals for months on end, while keeping enough food for them on hand.

Right.

Oddly the Egyptians and Chinese empires of the time didn't notice the waters overwhelming them while they were asleep or something.

Noah's Flood was a simple lifting of the Gilgamesh Epic from Babylon - the Jews liked it and kept it from the Exile, just changed the names to fit into their particular mythology.

Mark Isaak compiled a list of worldwide flood myths - the Hebrew one doesn't stand out as particularly special - just something a bunch of herder tribesmen who didn't know much about the sea would believe.

--R.

This whole Ark thing is one of the dumbest things in the Bible, if taken literally, among lots, and lots, of dumb shit.

Even (laugh) if you could round up one girl and one boy of every animal type (lolz), who here actually thinks you can create an entire population from one female and one male? No chance, period. Your offspring would be inbred,r etarded and dying after just a few generations.

[Rust]

Where does it say he brought food for them

Well if you want to pretend none of the animals needed to eat for a year, that's fine with me, it just makes the whole story even more of a fairytale.

Most Jews accept that the Bible is full of allegory anyhow, no?

--R.

[mofish]

It's in the book you despise. Says God told Moses what to right in the Bible.

Who says i despise the bible?
I'm pretty sure I've never made the claim

Weird mix of persecution complex and superiority complex religious types have. 1. You disagree with their claims so you must hate them 2. You disagree with their claims so youre a small, miserable, misguided, empty person.

[Darcler]

Where does it say he brought food for them

Well if you want to pretend none of the animals needed to eat for a year, that's fine with me, it just makes the whole story even more of a fairytale.

Most Jews accept that the Bible is full of allegory anyhow, no?

--R.

Seven animals, damn it! FOOD CHAIN

[Ganzo]

Most Jews accept that the Bible is full of allegory anyhow, no?

Yes and no. I don't feel like writing up explanation, since i'm about to jump in a car and drive to Chicago

[Lyion]

What exactly is your point Tikker? Donnel and I are the ones debating from the ID point of view, and we accept that there isn't proof of ID. It's simply what we believe in.

We accept that Creationism is NOT proven Fact.

On the flip side many in this thread are stating other unproven things are the way it is, when it fact they have no more proof than Intelligent Design. I find it interesting you are upset about one article of faith, and yet another that is strictly opinion and not at all proven is fine in your mindset.

Your original post is a prime example of something completely circumstantial without a basis in proof, and yet its put forth as evidence to something it in all honesty probably has no correlation to.

You may claim not to have disdain for religion or peoples faith but your posts say otherwise.

Reread the posts and look at it from our point of view.

[Gidan]

I have a great deal of respect for people who are truly devoted to their faith. People willing to look at every view and truely analyze it. What I dont understand is why the idea of evolution is so quickly shot down by many religious people. Even the recently decesed pope has admitied that it is a posibility and that it should be looked into and doesn't conflict with the bible.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the
recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been
progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The
convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself
a significant argument in favour of this theory.

Pope John Paul II
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996

[Lyion]

Gidan, we accept evolution. The problem is the science zealouts like Rust who try to lump MICROEVOLUTION and MACROEVOLUTION into one pool, when they are distinct.

Microevolution and small changes is fact.

Speciation or macroevolution is a wild hunch that many premiere biologists do not agree with and has never had any strong proof. It has more holes than a block of swiss cheese.

[mofish]

The problem are people that for whatever reason dont like the idea that we evolved from more primitive animals, trying to invent arguments to disprove evolution as a theory. Its like trying to sink the Titanic by poking holes in the hull with a hammer and a screwdriver


Poor Pope, that young, misguided, empty, miserable, liberal, cynical atheist

As usual, the argument is getting twisted, goalposts are being moved. Since you all agree Creationism, and Intelligent Design, do not constitute science, then we are all good. Keep them out of science classes and we all get along nicely. You can believe what you like. The problem comes in with people like Donnel, who in an earlier post insinuated that creationism be taught as if it were a scientific theory (or I guess he could be implying that evolution not be taught at school, either way). Keep your fairytales out of my science class, keep your religion out of my government, and we all get to live happily ever after. Dont see whats so hard to fathom about that.

But seriously, big ups to the Pope for having the nuts to say that. That's awesome.

[Lyion]

Someone educated in a Catholic school will have 10 times the knowledge, academic acumen, and overall education when compared to someone educated in public school.

Oh, and they'll understand both Intelligent Design and Darwins theories, as well.
Heaven forbid someone actually try to delve deeply into things that are huge mysteries to us.

[Tossica]

Someone educated in a Catholic school will have 10 times the knowledge, academic acumen, and overall education when compared to someone educated in public school.

Your sphincter is getting a good workout today Lyion. All this shit talk must be exhausting.