bluefugue

Oh I imagine Oolon knows all about how punk eek and gradualism need not be mutually exclusive... after all, Dawkins devoted a whole chapter to the subject in The Blind Watchmaker. (I wonder what Gould, by the way, thought of that chapter?)

Douglas J. Bender

If "punctuated equilibria" can be hypothesized, and made to fit with "Random mutation and natural selection", then anything can. If the fossil record showed just all life forms at the same time, and no differing chronologies, evolutionists would probably say, "Oh, look, an example of 'Extremely Punctuated Equilibria' - who'd have thought that's how evolution would look? But, since we know evolution occurred, the fossil record confirms our theory of 'Extremely Punctuated Equilibria'. Isn't science wonderful?"


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

hezekiahjones,


You asked:
[quote] How many stars did those folks think were in the "firmament"? A couple thousand?[Quote]

Well, God said to Abraham that He would make his descendants as numerous as the stars, and also as numerous as the "sand of the sea". I'd say that the Israelites were not so blind as to think there were only a "couple thousand" grains of sand in the sea. In fact, in both cases, it is said that they "cannot be numbered for multitude".


Maybe; maybe not. So what?


Two, since koalas are "unclean".


They are "unclean" (they cannot be eaten, according to the restrictions in Leviticus).


Maybe. Is there only one kind of plant that koalas can eat, or is it that they only strongly prefer one kind of plant? In any case, what would prevent a year's supply for two koalas on the Ark?


Can carnivores survive on fruits and vegetables, or are their bodies such that they cannot digest those foods? In any case, if one assumes that God created all the animals in the first place, then certainly He could cause all the animals to experience an extended "hibernation" during the Ark's journey, in which case they would not need much food or care at all.


How do I know that it is indigenous solely to the upper Amazon rain forest? Even if so, is it not true that the seeds of many plants can survive long periods, and great drought or floods, before germinating/sprouting/growing?


If you mean, "manure", then the 800-year-old Noah was not "mucking out" any on any basis, since he was only 600 years old when the Flood came. However, as I mentioned earlier, if one accepts that God created the animals in the first place, and that there actually was a global Flood, and that God directed all the animals to the Ark, then it is no great leap of imagination or faith to assume that God caused all the animals to experience an extended period of "hibernation", in which case there would have been little or no care necessary for them during the year-long journey of the Ark.


You said:
Yes. An "Enquiring" mind. But not willing to consider the answers sincerely.


In Christ,

Douglas

Jesse

Douglas:
If "punctuated equilibria" can be hypothesized, and made to fit with "Random mutation and natural selection", then anything can. If the fossil record showed just all life forms at the same time, and no differing chronologies, evolutionists would probably say, "Oh, look, an example of 'Extremely Punctuated Equilibria' - who'd have thought that's how evolution would look? But, since we know evolution occurred, the fossil record confirms our theory of 'Extremely Punctuated Equilibria'. Isn't science wonderful?"

Creationists have a lot of misconceptions about punctuated equilibrium. See this page for some clarifications:

(edit: the link isn't working, but click the "cached" version of the article "All You Need to Know about Punctuated Equilibrium" at the top of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=punctuated+equilibrium+theobald" target="_blank">this</a> page of google search results)

A major misconception is that punctuated equilibrium can explain any instance of sudden appearance you like. It can't--punctuated equilibrium just says that transitions between species are apt to be fairly rapid (although it would still take thousands of years in most cases) because speciation usually happens due to reproductive isolation. But transitions at higher taxonomic levels, like a transition between the reptile class and the mammal class, are still understood to happen gradually (think of it like of travelling a mile in a totally smooth way vs. making short hops with rests in between). So, for example, the relatively sudden appearance of a number of phyla in the Cambrian explosion would not be seen as an example of punctuated equilibrium--some other explanation is needed (and there are a number of theories, if you're interested).

In any case, you're incorrect that radical mixing in the fossil record could be explained away by evolutionists. Also, you haven't really addressed the issue of the ultra-precise ordering that I mentioned in my last post (the one with all the graphs), although I assume you'd just say that you don't believe them anyway because you don't believe in the geological column (this still would not explain why the same set of fauna are consistently found within the same rock layers, though).

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

Blinn

OH, FOR CHRIS'SAKE! GODDIDDIT! CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

S2Focus

Over on the scigirl vs. Bender "formal" debate thread, Mr. Bender had this to say:

You have not shown any examples of "kinds" evolving "new kinds", nor of any "kind" evolving a "novel" feature. "Cannot" must mean "genetically impossible", or it does not address my definition of "kind".


Now since we all know that humans and chimpanzees are members of different "kinds", I'd like to hear from Mr. Bender what sorts of "novel" features distinguish humans from chimps. That is, what organs/body-parts/whatever do humans have that could not be described as modified versions of chimp organs/body-parts/whatever?

If humans have no "novel" features not shared in modified form by chimps, then what is the rationale for claiming that the descent of humans and chimps from a common ancestor is anything more than the standard creationist "definition" of microevolution?

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Douglas,

You’re certainly free to be as cynical as you want when it comes to hypothetical bodies of evidence. It might also be kind of interesting to talk about evidence that exists.

Scientists recognize your point that we can only produce ad hoc explanations to patch up the inadequacy of a theory to a certain degree. However, punctuated equilibrium is not simply an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a theory that was based upon consistent trends in the evidence, not simply a few anomalies. As we observe nature today, as we examine the fossil record, very clear and unambiguous proof emerges that animals change at varying tempos.

If you are only able to see pieces of someone’s backyard through small gaps in the slates, given a enough movement you can often piece together what the yard looks like. Someone might object that your notion of what the yard looks like is simply based upon limited information. While it is a valid objection, it does not apply in cases where we have viewed the yard from enough angles to make it unlikely that our conception about the overall shape is radically mistaken.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Dr Rick

...anything, anything at all, no matter how absurd, cruel, or preposterous it may be.

Rick

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

theyeti

I believe that koalas can only survive off of eucalyptus. But the real question is not about storage, it's about transporting it there. What, did Noah and company travel to Australia to get the year's supply of eucalyptus? Or did the koalas themselves carry it with them on their backs? For that matter, how did the koalas themselves get there in the first place? Would you seriously suggest that two individuals could make it from Australia to the Middle East without getting eaten, killed, frozen, or sick? Last I checked, koalas aren't very good swimmers either. And let's forget the koalas for a second -- there are literally thousands of animals in similar situations, which could never make it to the Ark, let alone survive on it. Do you not understand why the Ark "hypothesis" is absurd to everyone who is not committed to believing in it? Do you also see why scientists don't give it any consideration?

Some can, some can't. Cats for one need meat in their diets or they'll go blind. There are other carnivores that have an absolute requirement for meat as well, and all of them do best with a primarily meat based diet. But again, you fail to see the real difficulty. It's not so much what they eat when they're on the Ark, as what they had to eat when they got off. With only two of every "kind" of herbivore around, there's just not enough for the carnivores to survive. Lions require, IIRC, about 60 lbs of meat per day. That means that roughly one "kind" of herbivore will be going extinct every day for at least several months, just to satisfy the lion's needs. And who knows how many had to die to satisfy the T-Rex? And for that matter, what the heck did the herbivores eat, seeing as how the whole Earth was just stripped of vegetation? Again, it's just plain silly.

If your just going to insert miracles to gloss over every difficulty, then there's not much point in further discussion. Why not assume that God temporarily gave Noah super-human powers, so that he could work tirelessly around the clock? Mabey God turned some of the dinosaurs into humans, so that they could do the work? Mabey God had the the elephants shit eucalyptus leaves, and the koalas shit peanuts, so that the food and crap problems would be taken care of simultaneously? Exactly what methodology would you use to establish which of these hypotheses is the correct one? See now why it's not science? Ever wonder why a God capable of such miracles ever bothered to flood the world in the first place, and then after realizing that he created for himself an impossible situation, had to keep performing more and more miracles to keep things from failing miserably, as they certainly would have without his intervening every 10 seconds or so? As long as you're inserting miracles, you can account for absolutely any set of data, real or imaginary, because you're just making it up as you go. Now if you want to believe this, then fine. But whatever you do, don't call it science.

In Gilgamesh,

theyeti

MrKrinkles

LOL!

This is so sad.

Brooks