McBell
Unbound
um...
They were ahead of their time?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A simple question for creationists.
- Thread starter PennyKay
- Start date
They were ahead of their time?
gnostic
The Lost One
mestemia said:
I wouldn't be surprise if one of those creationists was to say that God planted the evidences in Jericho. Evidences of human remains, foundations and artifacts, etc.
Some actually believed that God put dinosaur fossils on the ground, and tampered the age of the fossils, to confound archaeologists and scientists.
In another thread, I told one of them that are billions of galaxies, and even many times that of stars. Who know how many are billions of light years away. The nearest Andromeda Galaxy, our nearest spiral galaxy, is about 2.5 billion of light years away from Earth.
If that true and if God supposedly created the entire universe, then we shouldn't be able to see Andromeda Galaxy, because it should take 2.5 billion years away from here; light take that long to reach it. A few of them tried to explain it that God put all those lights there, so one moment there were no lights from distant galaxies and suddenly they are there.
How science illiterate is that?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
If "species" is a concept that is controversal, what do you think "speciation" will be??
camanintx
Well-Known Member
The concept of "species" is not controversial, it's the application that is difficult. Nature has a tendency to ignore attempts to impose our preconceptions on it.
McBell
Unbound
And even with as "controversial" as the concept of species is, you still prefer to hide behind the word "kind".
Now that is just to funny!!
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And imposing words such as "kind" and "type" are even more controversial considering the writers of your scriptures believed bats were a type of bird and insects had four feet.
Shermana
Heretic
Well, the word "Bird", Tsippor, comes from Tsapphar, which means "thing that departs", or perhaps "flying thing". I don't think they believed so much bats were a kind of what we call a "bird" today, but rather classified in the same sort of creature of something that flies/"departs".
Also, where do you get that it says all insects had 4 legs? We are specifically allowed to eat crickets and grasshoppers because they have 2 jumping legs in addition to their 4 other legs.
As for "Speciation", that itself is a murky subject because we have yet to see any true organisms that can no longer mate whatsoever (though perhaps at small rates) with their "previous self".
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think that the problem is that Biblical literalists don't care to understand the subtleties of the original language... just what is written in the English version they own.
Leviticus 11:20-23 20 All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.
Actually we have... again mostly with plants but also with some insects and mice.
wa:do
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I wasn't trying to be literal...per se. I try to get the info straight from Jewish translations as much as possible.
Leviticus - Chapter 11 (Parshah Shemini) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Leviticus 11:13 and 19
And among birds, you shall hold these in abomination; they shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: The eagle [or the griffin vulture], the kite, the osprey,........the stork, the heron after its species; the hoopoe and the atalef [bat?]
Shermana
Heretic
I am a literalist, and I often have the same problem with fellow literalists who base their doctrines on the version they are presented with (or makes up the Majority of translations due to their target market) and refuse to look into the language issues.
Here is a commentary on the issue. I understand what is being referred to, but its an issue of Semantics, it appears that the "four feet" are distinguished from the other two legs. Similarly with the locusts and grasshopper, who have "two legs for jumping" in addition to their 4 feet. So the "creeping upon all fours" can be interpreted to be their 4 main legs, likewise with the Crickets who have "2 legs" in addition to their "4 feet".
Which mice and insects have been provenly 100% incompatible to produce fertile offspring with their "former selves"? I see some with very low rates, but none that are 0%.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
But then why would they mention all other flying insects only having 4 feet?
And other creeping insects with 4 feet?
Perhaps they simply didn't recognize one pair of legs as actual legs?
Faroe Island mice may rarely produce sterile offspring with their parent population of European House mice. I don't know that they produce fertile offspring.
In many cases, we can't really tell about the insects because what separates them is behavior... they simply don't recognize each other as viable mates, regardless of the potential genetics. Even in fruit flies, inseminating them with sperm from another of these species doesn't always work because a female will just keep that sperm "in storage". You have to find a way to trick her into using it.
wa:do
Shermana
Heretic
Exactly. Like I said, they call Crickets something that creeps "on fours" yet immediately mentioning the jumping legs in addition to the 4 feet. Perhaps "on fours" could be read as a non-literal expression that developed from an (originally) literal expression, such as "the dog "walks on all fours" may have become a phrase to include anything that crawls, otherwise it would be that they didn't recognize the hind legs as real legs such as with the jumping cricket's legs.
I will look into the Faroe islands mice. If anyone has access to this article, PM me. Either way though, there are numerous animals that are radically different like Camels and Llamas that can still have fertile offspring.
The House mice of the Faroe Islands: a study in microdifferentiation - Berry - 2009 - Journal of Zoology - Wiley Online Library
At least now I can say that "Microdifferentiation" has been used in a journal.
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Dino extinction made mammals grow 1000 times bigger
"The extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago resulted in the size of mammals increasing - by about a thousand times bigger than they had been.
Basically, the dinosaurs disappear and all of a sudden there is nobody else eating the vegetation. Thats an open food source and mammals start going for it, and its more efficient to be an herbivore when youre big, said Dr. Jessica Theodor, associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Calgary.
You lose dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and within 25 million years the system is reset to a new maximum for the animals that are there in terms of body size. Thats actually a pretty short time frame, geologically speaking, she added.
Thats really rapid evolution.
Researchers collected data on the maximum size for major groups of land mammals on each continent, including Perissodactyla, odd-toed ungulates such as horses and rhinos; Proboscidea, which includes elephants, mammoth and mastodon; Xenarthra, the anteaters, tree sloths, and armadillos; as well as a number of other extinct groups."
Dino extinction made mammals grow ‘1000 times bigger’
"The extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago resulted in the size of mammals increasing - by about a thousand times bigger than they had been.
Basically, the dinosaurs disappear and all of a sudden there is nobody else eating the vegetation. Thats an open food source and mammals start going for it, and its more efficient to be an herbivore when youre big, said Dr. Jessica Theodor, associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Calgary.
You lose dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and within 25 million years the system is reset to a new maximum for the animals that are there in terms of body size. Thats actually a pretty short time frame, geologically speaking, she added.
Thats really rapid evolution.
Researchers collected data on the maximum size for major groups of land mammals on each continent, including Perissodactyla, odd-toed ungulates such as horses and rhinos; Proboscidea, which includes elephants, mammoth and mastodon; Xenarthra, the anteaters, tree sloths, and armadillos; as well as a number of other extinct groups."
Dino extinction made mammals grow ‘1000 times bigger’
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Meganeura is a genus of extinct insects from the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago, which resembled and are related to the present-day dragonflies. With wingspans of more than 75 cm (2.5 ft), M. monyi is one of the largest known flying insect species; the Permian Meganeuropsis permiana is another. Meganeura were predatory, and fed on other insects, and even small amphibians.
Fossils were discovered in the French Stephanian Coal Measures of Commentry in 1880. In 1885, French paleontologist Charles Brongniart described and named the fossil "Meganeura" (large-nerved), which refers to the network of veins on the insect's wings. Another fine fossil specimen was found in 1979 at Bolsover in Derbyshire. The holotype is housed in the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris.
Meganeura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fossils were discovered in the French Stephanian Coal Measures of Commentry in 1880. In 1885, French paleontologist Charles Brongniart described and named the fossil "Meganeura" (large-nerved), which refers to the network of veins on the insect's wings. Another fine fossil specimen was found in 1979 at Bolsover in Derbyshire. The holotype is housed in the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris.
Meganeura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It could be... but it still shows the problems with taking the writings literally.
I see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. You may be able to get a copy from an interlibrary loan.
Interesting thing about the "cama"... Camels and Llamas have the same number of chromosomes, making hybrids more plausible, however, they can't happen naturally and must be produced via artificial insemination by humans. And at that only with Camel sperm and a Llama mother... the other way around doesn't work at all.
Since the first Cama was produced in the late 1990's and the Dubai Camel Reproduction Center [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]only talks about "producing" more Camas and not "breeding" them, I can only conclude that they are in fact sterile.
They are talking about trying to find a way to produce a reverse cross (llama dad), so we'll have to keep an eye out on that project.
The Dubai Camel..Reproduction Center The intense interest in camel racing in the Emirates is not so much about money as about cultural heritage
wa:do
This is a really simple and probably obvious question to ask creationists (or anybody who doesn't think evolution is correct), but one to which I can not ever recollect obtaining an answer to.
My question is simply, how do you explain fossils?
It may sound like a daft question to ask, but it honestly does baffle me.
Please give your honest opinions
Not many creationist know of the objects that have been found fossilized
Like, a fossilized human foot inside a boot, or fossilized tools, a hat, clothes and so on.
Just like, not many evolutionist know that carbon 14 has a half life of 5,700 years.
Making it impossible for dinosaur bones to have it, but they do.
Even if you take away the fossilized objects, a petrified tree would have to become petrified quickly, or the wood would rot.
Last edited:
And some people feel compelled to leave their opinion.
Yes and you are entitled to carry on as much as you like. Have fun.