Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Homo sapiens belongs to the kind Man. It differs from similar-looking kinds - apes - in its incompatibility to breed with them, for example. I'm not qualified to list the genetic differences, and I haven't the time to look them up, but I'm sure you will agree they are there. I could speak of the psychological element and the spiritual element, but they are outside the normal scientific field.Please give the name of this "kind" that homo sapiens belong to and the process by which this classification was derived, ie what characteristics of the human species classifies it in this kind as opposed to another kind
this should be interesting :rolleyes:
Man is of course different from the horse kind in that he has 2 legs, not 4. But I expect you may have noticed, even though you believe they both came from the same ancestor.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
daithifleming said:
Ah, yes, the variation within kind creationists hold to. Yes, I have no problem with that; I am transitional between my parents and my children.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm. Have you observed my ancestry over your millions of years?
I don't need to. I know that you are a mutated copy of both your parents genes, and your children will be mutated versions of you and your partner also. You are a transitional form between those generations, and your genome can be used to map this transition using the inherited mutations as guides.
By transitional I thought you meant between one kind and another: ape-to-man-to-superman. Have we reached the Omega Point yet?
But I would wonder about your emphasis on mutation - would sorting not account for most of my differences, rather than mutation?0 -
-
-
daithifleming said:
Ah, yes, the variation within kind creationists hold to. Yes, I have no problem with that; I am transitional between my parents and my children.
By transitional I thought you meant between one kind and another: ape-to-man-to-superman. Have we reached the Omega Point yet?
But I would wonder about your emphasis on mutation - would sorting not account for most of my differences, rather than mutation?
So I was right, you are a transitional form. Good. The sorting you speak of is similar to the re-sorting of the letters in the copying process of a book. Some changes create new words, others have no effect, and others still make the sentences illegible. Sure, it is still a book, but it cannot be described as the same. That is a mutation. Call it sorting if you want, it changes nothing of the process. I already know you don't accept that the books language cannot change from English to a different language, but that is because you don't appreciate the effect time can have. I can't do anything to change that for you.
(btw, this is daithifleming, i ditched the old name)
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Wolfsbane was asking whether "sorting" (whetever he means by that) would account more for his uniqueness than mutation. So I thought perhaps he might be referring to meiotic recombination.
No. According to creationists, mutations are the result of the re-shuffling of pre-existing information. They say that this means no new information is added, and therefore no new species can arise. The ironic thing is that they are actually describing evolution, in my view. The reshuffling of DNA nucleotides is pretty much what mutation is, and the new genes that are created are much the same as my analogy of reshuffling the letters in a book to create new words. Simple.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Homo sapiens belongs to the kind Man. It differs from similar-looking kinds - apes - in its incompatibility to breed with them, for example.
By the same logic are you saying the orangutan and gorilla are different kinds to each other? After all they cannot breed with each other. In fact if we take that line of thinking to the next logical step and apply it rationally it would seem your definition of a 'kind' is pretty much the same as what others call a 'species'.
From your earlier posts I gathered that a 'kind' was like a template or 'basal' creature which several other similar creatures evolved from. Example:
The common frog;
could change into other species or 'kinds' of frog like the flying frog;
or the giant toad;
Either way your use of 'kinds' really isn't helping proceedings at all. It would be more helpful to all involved if you just addressed them as species (or even genera) like everyone else does.
edit: of course I'm not saying the modern day common frog is necessarily ancestral to these other frogs, just something like it is the most likely.0 -
Well Wolfie you walked right into that one :rolleyes:
Awww, I was laying a creationist trap and you went and sprung it too soon! Now all I have is a trap full of leaves and a spooked creationist that I won't be able to catch for ages.
Well I guess we pretty much got his definition of "kinds" nailed down anyway. The ark resuced a minimum of 800,000 pairs or 1.6 million organisms of various sizes. If we assume 90% of these were microorganisms that either took up negligible space or did not require rescuing from the flood... that gives us about 160,000 non-interbreedable animals. That's at the conservative end of the scale.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Awww, I was laying a creationist trap and you went and sprung it too soon! Now all I have is a trap full of leaves and a spooked creationist that I won't be able to catch for ages.
Well I guess we pretty much got his definition of "kinds" nailed down anyway. The ark resuced a minimum of 800,000 pairs or 1.6 million organisms of various sizes. If we assume 90% of these were microorganisms that either took up negligible space or did not require rescuing from the flood... that gives us about 160,000 non-interbreedable animals. That's at the conservative end of the scale.
What size of an Ark are we looking at in this scenario? An ark that is 450 feet long X 75 feet wide and 45 feet high seems like a tight squeeze. 0 -
marco_polo wrote: »What size of an Ark are we looking at in this scenario? An ark that is 450 feet long X 75 feet wide and 45 feet high seems like a tight squeeze.
Well, I've done my part of the calculations. If someone has a figure for the volume of space occupied by the average animal I guess we could take it a little further.
Oh sod it. Wild speculation for fun:
We're probably talking about something on the order of 100,000 cubic meters (average half a cubic meter per animal), assuming the animals are each kept separate and aren't allowed to move. You'd need a whole lot of people to look after them too (if each person tends 100 animals we need 1600 crew just for the feeding and dung shovelling) and space for food and supplies. Crew makes another 5000 cubic meters, food and supplies perhaps 80,000-100,000 cubic meters.
Shall we say about the size of an aircraft carrier? Conservatively about 300 meters by 50 meters by 10 floors. Made primarily of wood.
This estimate allows us a very cramped, smelly and unhygenic ark. I think the bible also describes mills facilities and ovens. There'd also need to be open areas to tend to animals during stall cleanup and for vetinary examination and cleaning.
Also I have heard it said that some versions of the tale specify 7 pairs of each kind... that might help to stave off the mass extinction that would follow from trying to restart 80,000 species from a 2 individual genetic bottle-neck. It would also make our boat much larger.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Well, I've done my part of the calculations. If someone has a figure for the volume of space occupied by the average animal I guess we could take it a little further.
Oh sod it. Wild speculation for fun:
We're probably talking about something on the order of 100,000 cubic meters (average half a cubic meter per animal), assuming the animals are each kept separate and aren't allowed to move. You'd need a whole lot of people to look after them too (if each person tends 100 animals we need 1600 crew just for the feeding and dung shovelling) and space for food and supplies. Crew makes another 5000 cubic meters, food and supplies perhaps 80,000-100,000 cubic meters.
Shall we say about the size of an aircraft carrier? Conservatively about 300 meters by 50 meters by 10 floors. Made primarily of wood.
This estimate allows us a very cramped, smelly and unhygenic ark. I think the bible also describes mills facilities and ovens. There'd also need to be open areas to tend to animals during stall cleanup and for vetinary examination and cleaning.
Also I have heard it said that some versions of the tale specify 7 pairs of each kind... that might help to stave off the mass extinction that would follow from trying to restart 80,000 species from a 2 individual genetic bottle-neck. It would also make our boat much larger.
Hahaha, its so funny when you attempt to empirically explain bible events such as the Ark. 0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Hahaha, its so funny when you attempt to empirically explain bible events such as the Ark.
Quiet you! I've already started building it! Now if you want to make up for ruining my creationist trap you can pitch in. I need someone to deforest Wicklow for starters.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Awww, I was laying a creationist trap and you went and sprung it too soon! Now all I have is a trap full of leaves and a spooked creationist that I won't be able to catch for ages.
Well I guess we pretty much got his definition of "kinds" nailed down anyway. The ark resuced a minimum of 800,000 pairs or 1.6 million organisms of various sizes. If we assume 90% of these were microorganisms that either took up negligible space or did not require rescuing from the flood... that gives us about 160,000 non-interbreedable animals. That's at the conservative end of the scale.
Not including all the "kinds" that are now extinct, such as dinosaurs, that must have been on the Ark.0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Hahaha, its so funny when you attempt to empirically explain bible events such as the Ark.
Lucky the EU wasn't around in those days. Still in Old Testament times when murder and rape were practially considered a sport, I guess animal welfare was not a big issue. :eek:The rules for animals being transported within the European Union require rest periods. The rules say that unweaned animals (still drinking their mothers' milk) are allowed to travel for nine hours before being given one hour's rest; pigs for 24 hours, with access to water, before a break; horses for 24 hours with access to water every eight hours; while cattle, sheep and goats may travel for 14 hours before being given one hour's rest and water.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement