TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were merged?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: every single one that has been supposed discovered. with the complexity of the number of species on this earth, there should be millions of examples of inter-species transition, but all there are, are just a few questionable discoveries. what significant evolutionary jumps have been accounted for?? ide like to know, because i cant see how a dinosaur can evolve into birds, and i cant see how reproduction could have evolved from bacteria that simply copy themselves over and over again, and how bacteria can evolve into animals with specialized organs that have specific functions and with none serves no function at all, with every part of its body serving some form of specific function, and all this coming about by chance.

Hmm, how about archeopteryx, I think it's a good evidence of transition between birds and dinosaurs. It had wings and claws, it had beak and teeth, it could fly and run but was pretty much lousy at both. And there have been found several similar species.

As far as for single cellular organisms evolving into multicellular, there are two branches of, eh, almost multicellular organisms. First are multinuclear organisms, they are basically single celled bacteria, but have more than one nucleus, each in its own membrane. It is also interesting to note that many cellular organelles, like mitochondria, are most likely the result of a symbiosis between large bacteria and smaller ones living inside them. There are also sponges which are basically multicellular, but each of their own cells can function individually.

quote:

when u find two fossils, they are either the same animal, a different breed of the same animal, or a different species altogether.

Well, duh, what else can they be? If they can interbreed, they are different breeds of same species. If they can't, then they're not the same species. Although there are cases that are right on the verge between the two. Horses and donkeys for example. They can make mules but they are sterile and can't reproduce. It's as in between as it gets.

quote:

if chihuahua's were extinct many years ago, and so were pitbulls. they are both dogs. u find their fossils. they seem very much alike. but they have different skull shapes, different sized skeletons, longer teeth on the pitbull, bigger bones on the pitbull, etc. the evolutionist would immediatly assume the chihuahua a different species and the pitbull another and that one evolved from the other. but no, they are just different breeds of the same species.

First of all, dog breeds are an example where humans already interfered in natural course of evolution to emphasise the desired appearance and characteristics. Such great variations are sustainable only because of human induced selective breeding. But if we would perpetuate the separation of the two breeds for a long period of time, eventually they would acquire enough mutations to make them incapable of breeding between each other. You yourself admit that mutations are normal and naturally occuring. When you have two groups of the same species separated for a very long period of time in different environments, those two groups simply start to move in different directions until they can no longer interbreed.

quote:

apply this to our so-called ape relationship. there are many drawings, etc., but where are the hundreds of skeletons of our half-ape, half-human breathren??

There are several skeletons found that are in between apes and humans, some more similar to humans, some more similar to apes. But you must realize that skeletons of dead animals rarely last for more than a year or so in nature. Even if they're not eaten right away, they're eaten by bacteria and fungi. Only in cases where animals end up in mud or tar soon after their death are their bones preserved. That's why those skeletons are so rare. But there are enough found to suggest that we did evolve, like every other animal. When you look at older bones and start to move back into the past, you find less and less species that exist today and you start finding some species that are similar to existing ones and some that are totally different. If there was no evolution, you could find 50 million old human bones and dinosaurs would still live today.

quote:

by historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence. someone asked, maybe by you, how can creationism be scienctific. i provided an article that explained it. now your going to just cast it aside because your worldview doesnt allow for the existance of a god or creator. really, that's why i think this debate is useless, because our presuppositions are so opposite each other, we can only go back and forth, back and forth.

No, I have cast that article aside because it is not written even in semi-scientific manner and doesn't explain anything and is based on false premises. Theoretically, you could have scientific creationism as long as it is based on premises that are not faulty or at the very least uncertifiable.

quote:

here is the best link i can provide for my arguement against evolution. dont just put it off as religion and say its false. put up some evidence yourself debunking the information this link provides. http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

Meh, it's big so I'll do it at a later time.

quote:

have u ever heard of the mitochondrial adam and eve?? http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGdna.htm

Of course I have. Mitochondrial Eve (there is no Adam because mitochondrial DNA is always transferred from mother to offspring only) is basically an extrapolation of the current observed mutation trends in mitochondrial DNA and suggests that we had one common female ancestor. That is mostly true for every species.

quote:

no, because water can be brown, green, and other colors than blue. but here's an answer to your firmament question. skip the first section-THE DARWINIAN FISH.

Yes, but clean and large bodies of water like sea are blue. I hardly think anyone could come up to compare the sky with a muddy river. But comparing the sky and the ocean is not that far off. Both are blue or gray, depending on the weather.

quote:

http://home.gowyo.com/creation/FtB4.htm

The link's not working.

quote:

well, the firmament was out in space. so thats what held it up. but what kept it from going astray was the earth's gravity. and ill also say god held it up, but u wouldnt believe that.

Well, it's more believable than gravity. Because if it was gravity that held it up, a most miniscule disturbation of the balance of such an unstable system would cause the Earth to move towards the one side of the firmament and to crash into it.

quote:

There would be no nucleur winter because heat can travel through water, and so can light. and the layer of water would have a greenhouse effect, not a nucleur winter effect. that is why all the earth had very mild, pleasant temperatures, and no bad weather, until the firmament fell.

Yes, heat and light can travel through water, but at great energy losses. Especially since we must assume that the firmament was at least several km thick, considering that when it rained it covered Mt. Everest. Go dive that deep and see if you receive any heat or energy from the sun. Maybe a photon or two every hour.

quote:

oxygen density - lets see, no deserts + no massive deforestation + no bad weather + no habitat destruction = would mean much much more vegetation(which creates oxygen) than today, and with it plenty of water, and with a greenhouse effect on the planet, the oxygen density would be much higher. measure the oxygen density outside, and then go inside a greenhouse, and measure the oxygen density inside the greenhouse.

First of all, there is no evidence of an increased oxygen density in the atmosphere in the past. The researches show only that the amount of oxygen has been steadily increasing.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04o.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precam...oterostrat.html

Secondly, trees and vegetation are not the primary source of oxygen. Especially since they consume oxygen and release CO2 during the night. The primary source of oxygen is sea algae. They live all the way from the arctic to tropical shores of Bermuda and they're not really influenced by the greenhouse effects or bad weather.

quote:

there's a scientific analysis right there supporting firmament. it was the case in biblical times because that is what was described in the bible, and historically.

Well, ultimately we come to the point where you admit that the only evidence for the firmament is the bible. And that's as far from scientific evidence as every other mythology.

quote:

u may live longer, but your DNA has too many mutations, and your enviroment has too many contaminants for you to live longer than 120 years of age. back then, there was no industry, pollutants, etc. oxygen is whats needed to carry out all the chemical reactions in your body, so the more of it you have, the more chemical reactions can take place in your body(more energy, more everything), which means longer life.

Well, obviously you have a totally faulty view on chemical reactions in your body. Our bodies are adapted to the exact amount of oxygen that currently exists in the atmosphere, not more, not less. You get as much oxygen from the atmosphere as you need. If you'd take in more oxygen you'd actually get more free radicals released in your cells which would result in the effect exactly opposite of the one you're suggesting. Here's what happens when cells are exposed to too much oxygen:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/toxico2.htm

quote:

protected from radiation and a very healthy diet of natural foods(no preservatives or additives), and a very pure enviroment, yes, u can live much longer than 100 years.

While their food was not as filled with additives as is ours today, it was much harder to have a balanced diet then than it is today simply because you couldn't just walk into a supermarket and ask for what you want but you had to spend all your day searching for a few berries.

There's your answer. skip to the section THE FIRST MAN.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../cains_wife.asp

Eh? How does that answer where Cain found his first wife? Cain left Adam and Eve and never had any contact with his parents. So how did he get married with one of their daughters?

quote:

less water = less vegetation = less oxygen.

Aside from the researches showing that the amounts of atmospheric oxygen steadly increased, I've already mentioned that the primary source of oxygen are algae.

quote:

rarely was life-expectancy ever 20-30 years, except in some parts of time in specific places such as ancient egypt, nomadic tribes, etc.

Yeah, like in biblical times?

quote:

there are still places today with such life expectancies, in africa, and remote jungles. solar radiation is known to cause mutations and cancer. cancer is a mutation.

Yes, but solar radiation causes mutations in the skin, not reproductive system. You can get as much sunlight as you wish and your children would not be deformed because of it. Only your skin will.

quote:

inbreeding causes mutations. its like trying to put two +sides of a magnet together. it's just hard for them to come together, hence inbreeding would cause bad genes.

I see you really do have a horrible grasp of genetics, which is especially worrisome considering you had a relatively good explanation on the very site you posted. The reason why inbreeding causes genetic malformations is because every one of us has a few defective genes. Those genes are usually recessive and if you have only one half of the pair, the deformation won't appear. When two people are closely related, there is a greater chance that they have same defective genes, and therefore such defects are more likely to show. That's why it's not good to inbreed, and not because inbreeding causes mutations. Read a biology book.

quote:

with the advent of automobiles, and technology, especially medically-wise, our lives are much easier than they used to be, and our health is helped greatly by our gained knowledge of health and of medicine. so no, we are not getting more oxygen and yes the sun is shining brighter, less ozone.

Well, I've already explained why those two effects don't play a role in our longeivity.

Sheesh ... I go to a wedding and look at what I miss out on ...

Please excuse my grammar or any spelling mistakes. i know i make a few the first time around. usually i proof-read, but i dont always have the time or i just dont want to. but what its certainly not bad enough to not know what im saying, but excuse me if it does, and tell me.

quote:

Hmm, how about archeopteryx, I think it's a good evidence of transition between birds and dinosaurs. It had wings and claws, it had beak and teeth, it could fly and run but was pretty much lousy at both. And there have been found several similar species. As far as for single cellular organisms evolving into multicellular, there are two branches of, eh, almost multicellular organisms. First are multinuclear organisms, they are basically single celled bacteria, but have more than one nucleus, each in its own membrane. It is also interesting to note that many cellular organelles, like mitochondria, are most likely the result of a symbiosis between large bacteria and smaller ones living inside them. There are also sponges which are basically multicellular, but each of their own cells can function individually.

My answer to archeopteryx and the very few meager examples evolution has put up about inter-species transition in the fossil record.

Source

The Fossil Record

In theory, according to Darwinian evolution, there should be a continuum of life all about us representing every conceivable kind of intermediate between various kinds. Indeed, if observations could produce such a continuum, the evidence for transitional development would be greatly strengthened. But as it is, nature is clumped in discrete blocks, discrete kinds, more like separate bushes with diversity than one continuous tree of life.

Evolutionists reply that the present state is due to widespread extinctions of the various intervening steps which connected the various kinds long ago. If so, should not these past forms be well represented in the fossil record?

But the fossil record does not show the millions of tiny transitional life forms which Darwin�s theory postulated must have existed. Darwin himself admitted "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (The Origin of Species, page 332, cited from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 188.) He supposed another 100 years of digging would supply the gaps. It hasn�t. Evolutionists have searched diligently for the dramatic "missing links" between all the variety of basic kinds. In spite of the incredible effort, talent and money expended in this search, only a few examples of possible transition species can be identified.

The link between fish and amphibians had to be given up when its most hopeful example, the coelacanth, thought to be extinct for millions of years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean in 1938. This fish, which has skeletal "leg buds," turned out to be 100% fishlike in its internal soft tissue structures and has no amphibian tendencies in its behavior. There are no candidates to be found for the link between amphibians and reptiles.

The reptile-mammal link has one example of a fossilized creature that is essentially a reptile, but with a very mammal-like jaw structure, but no other similarities can be found.

The strongest "missing link" is the reptile-bird link. The famous Archeopteryx, a dinosaur flying reptile, may be considered a precursor to a bird, but no mechanism for the complex and extensive changes between Archeopteryx and modern birds have been found to be plausible.

But how many transition forms should we expect to find? "Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates 261 or 79.1% have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8%" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 189). Would not this imply that a similar proportion of extinct transitions should be found?

As Darwin admitted, "That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (The Origin of Species, page 464, from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 191.)

The fact that the fossil record did not contain the anticipated multitudes of transitional life forms Darwin�s theory implied was to them evidence that the fossil record was incomplete. It was a bad excuse then. Now, after 139 years of digging have produced literally tons of fossil data with no substantial evidence of transitional forms, it is a disaster. Indeed, groups of organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record and are distinct from other groups from their earliest appearance.

quote:

Well, duh, what else can they be? If they can interbreed, they are different breeds of same species. If they can't, then they're not the same species. Although there are cases that are right on the verge between the two. Horses and donkeys for example. They can make mules but they are sterile and can't reproduce. It's as in between as it gets.

what else can they be?? to an evolutionist paleontologist, they would say it is one missing link between species. example: rat-like animal evolving into a pitbull. where's the transitional fossils?? oh, this new disvoery of the chihuahua skeleton looks kind of like a rat, and kind of like a pitbull. that will be the transitional missing link. how do u know if they can interbreed if both dogs are extinct?? (THEORETICALLY SPEAKING- I MADE AN EXAMPLE IN THE LAST POST)

quote:

First of all, dog breeds are an example where humans already interfered in natural course of evolution to emphasise the desired appearance and characteristics. Such great variations are sustainable only because of human induced selective breeding. But if we would perpetuate the separation of the two breeds for a long period of time, eventually they would acquire enough mutations to make them incapable of breeding between each other. You yourself admit that mutations are normal and naturally occuring. When you have two groups of the same species separated for a very long period of time in different environments, those two groups simply start to move in different directions until they can no longer interbreed.

the fact that humans have been in control of the breeding of dogs means nothing. there are still different kinds of dogs, but they are still dogs. just like in nature, there are many kinds of birds, but they're still birds. how will separation of two breeds for a long period of time, eventually produce two different species. where's the evidence? where's the thousands, really millions of examples of these transitions?? all evolutionists have are few very questionable examples. mutations are normal, but they do not evolve. they degrade. show me one modern case in which a mutation was good. the mutations ive seen caused cancer, Multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, Muscular Distrophy, Spinal Ebifida, etc.

quote:

There are several skeletons found that are in between apes and humans, some more similar to humans, some more similar to apes. But you must realize that skeletons of dead animals rarely last for more than a year or so in nature. Even if they're not eaten right away, they're eaten by bacteria and fungi. Only in cases where animals end up in mud or tar soon after their death are their bones preserved. That's why those skeletons are so rare. But there are enough found to suggest that we did evolve, like every other animal. When you look at older bones and start to move back into the past, you find less and less species that exist today and you start finding some species that are similar to existing ones and some that are totally different. If there was no evolution, you could find 50 million old human bones and dinosaurs would still live today.

several very questionable skeletons, some even using animal bones not even of an ape or a man. the lucy skeleton were bones spread out over a large area in an african plain, and using animal bones of other animals that werent man or ape. your right that bones rarely last long in nature, and therefore the evidence u can bring up is very few and far in between.

quote:

If there was no evolution, you could find 50 million old human bones and dinosaurs would still live today.

well, in creationism, the earth is not millions of years old, but less than 15,000. we did live with dinsaurs at one time. there are a few passages in the bible describing bohemoth's with tails as a large as a cedar tree, which is was an enormous tree that used to inhabit lebanon. as i said, under a firmament, there is a great amounts of vegetation. the entire earth was full of vegetation. the dinosaurs had a great supply, and could prosper. but then the flood, firmament no longer there, and the post-flood world. barely any vegetation, it all has to grow back, and certainly wont grow back as it did before. dinosaurs needed very large amounts of food to survive, which they did not have, and so each dinosaur species became extinct, one by one. and so did many other species. with no more firmament acting as a greenhouse effect, the ice caps formed, it grew colder the higher up the latitudes u went. where do u think the legends of giant flying birds in native america, the legends of so many dragons in china, the legends of the knight killing the dragon in his cave. where do u think these legends came from?? legends are made to explain something, some truth. so what were they trying to explain??

quote:

No, I have cast that article aside because it is not written even in semi-scientific manner and doesn't explain anything and is based on false premises. Theoretically, you could have scientific creationism as long as it is based on premises that are not faulty or at the very least uncertifiable.

it actually is written in scientific manner. it uses the pretenses of cause and effect which that diagram was illustrating. science is a study of the relationship between cause and effect. thats how we come about our laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and innumerable other fields of science. the article uses no verses from the bible, but using logic, reason, and evidence to support its case.

How are the premises faulty?? All the evidence in nature points to intelligent design. An eye, for example, is a complex organ with interdependent, complex parts. If sightedness developed from unsightedness, how would the transitional forms be useful enough for the organism to survive? The question can rightly be asked, what good is 5% of an eye? The marvelously complex and specialized structures such as wings, lungs, hearts and brains are extremely difficult to explain. They point to design, design to purpose, and purpose to intelligence.

quote:

Meh, it's big so I'll do it at a later time.

heh, dont put it off too long. that is best comprehensive, talk about all subjects link i can put forth.

quote:

Of course I have. Mitochondrial Eve (there is no Adam because mitochondrial DNA is always transferred from mother to offspring only) is basically an extrapolation of the current observed mutation trends in mitochondrial DNA and suggests that we had one common female ancestor. That is mostly true for every species.

how could eve have children without adam?? so therefore, there was adam. dont tell me, our earliest ancestor was A-sexual.

quote:

Yes, but clean and large bodies of water like sea are blue. I hardly think anyone could come up to compare the sky with a muddy river. But comparing the sky and the ocean is not that far off. Both are blue or gray, depending on the weather.

did u read the article on the firmament?? because the color of the water really wasnt the point.

quote:

The link's not working.

i just tried it, and it worked. but ill post the article then.

Source

A Firmament = A Great World!
There is vast Biblical and scientific evidence showing a primordial paradise. Legends and traditions record that some people did not experience helpless old age. The Sumerians and Egyptians record that there was no sin on the earth, the crocodile did not seize prey and the serpent did not bite. From China as well we find records that tell animals and birds were led about without restraint. (ICR, Impact 192) Could this have really happened? The Bible clearly says it did and science now seems to suggest the possibility.

One of the major reasons this paradise was in place may be due to the firmament created in the sky by God on the second day. "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" (Genesis 1:6-7). During creation there was both a vertical and horizontal separation of water. The "horizontal" separated the dry land from the water and the "vertical" separated water from water thus creating the firmament. Therefore we have an indication that water was involved in this canopy. We do not know for sure what it was made of but other possible clues come from the Hebrew word for firmament, raqiya (raw-kee'-ah). Raqiya means to flatten out and extend a solid vault or canopy.

Another interesting thing about raqiya is that it also seems to refer to metal. For years Hebrew scholars have not known what to do with this definition of "firmament" so it has generally been accepted as just being a water vapor canopy. However, Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian records that the firmament was indeed crystalline (Josephus, Antiquities) as do other modern scholars. Now new scientific evidence also seems to support the idea of metal in the firmament as well.

An interesting characteristic of most metals is that they are clear in their pure form. In fact, when men went to the moon their visors on their helmets had a thin layer of pure, transparent, gold (National Geographic, Dec. 1969). Water is H2O, meaning two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. When pure H2O is compressed in experiments done today, under extremely cold conditions the Oxygen appears bluish but the two parts of Hydrogen are crystallized. At first the crystals appear transparent (can see through) and later they become opaque (can't see through). Since raqiya means to flatten, or compress together and spread out, the water (H2O) may have reacted in a similar way as seen in the above experiment, creating a firmament with hydrogen crystals (Baugh, Symphony).

Taking this a step further, microscopic examination of this crystalline, metallic hydrogen shows that a vast majority is transparent, allowing light to shine through. However, also present in smaller amounts are areas of opaque metallic hydrogen that is super conductive (Popular Science, Oct. 1989, p 25). This is important for two reasons. First of all, light would shine through only those "veins" in the firmament which were transparent. But most importantly, the opaque, super conductive material would serve as a means to hold the firmament in place. Recent experiments of super conductive material resulted in mid air suspension of certain objects. Nasa showed a photograph of a man holding super conductive material between his fingers causing a magnet to be suspended above. This would work both upside down and right side up (NASA, 1988). Keeping in mind that the earth is like a great big magnet and the firmament perhaps having super conductive metallic hydrogen, the crystalline canopy would be held in place (Discover, March 1991).

Hydrogen when excited by energy glows pink. This could perhaps indicate why plants in the pre-Flood world grew much more abundantly than today (by hundreds of feet). This is not to say that the earth would appear pink but rather pink light would be given off. It would be similar to looking through a pair of pink sunglasses where the world does not appear pink but rather all colors appear more vividly. Research has shown that plants grow better in pink light which fits the firmament model exactly (Scientific American, April 1988, p.32).

Still, yet another fascinating result of such a firmament is that it solves much of our problem with C-14 dating. C-14 comes from N-14 being bombarded by cosmic radiation. The firmament would have filtered out the harmful, short wave, radiation received from the sun and therefore C-14 could not be produced (even if canopy was just water vapor). This means that living organisms before the flood would have little or no C-14 in their bodies and therefore would appear extremely old according to the C-14 dating method despite their being young in age.

The filtering of this radiation is one of the causes for longevity of life in the pre-Flood world as well. Studies done to show the average age of people on a geographical basis, shows that people today, live shorter life spans nearer the equator (Brown, Secret, p.92). Also, it is a well known fact that the sun causes us to age much faster than normal. Recently on the Ophrah Winfrey show someone asked if there was anything to stop the aging process. The answer was that the best thing you could do was to never (summer or winter) go outside without sun screen on. The deadly, short waves of the sun are known to cause over 60 diseases today, all of which would be prevented by the firmament filtering out these rays.

Another beneficial effect of the firmament would be greater air pressure with higher oxygen (Higher oxygen without the higher air pressure would be toxic). Secular evidence from trapped air bubbles in fossilized amber shows that before the Flood we had roughly twice the atmospheric pressure and 30-35% oxygen (compared to the current 21%) (Science, Vol. 239, p. 1406). However, new evidence has caused creationists to feel this is too high because oxygen poisoning would result and therefore a better estimate may be from 23 to 25%.

Higher air pressure is also what we would expect to see with the firmament because all atmospheric gases, which NASA shows have escaped nearly 200 miles into outer space (as far as gravitational pull would allow) would have been compressed underneath this canopy (Baugh, Battle). Today, greater air pressure with higher oxygen is of great benefit to our bodies as we see from replication of such an atmosphere in hyperbaric chambers. A hyperbaric chamber is something that allows us to control the oxygen and air pressure in a controlled environment. Amazing things happen with hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO). Normally it takes from 7 to 21 days for an open wound to heal and 53 days to completely heal. However with HBO this healing time can on average be cut in half, depending on the severity and type of problem. (Fife, 1994). Dr. William Fife is head of the HBO lab at Texas A & M University where more research is done on this subject than any other non-government center. Some of the current research done at Texas A & M seems to suggest that HBO treatment may be able to cure Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Post Polio Syndrome and heal migraine headaches within 30 to 40 minutes. Other near miraculous healings of Gas Gangrene and ear drum problems, have been treated within one to two hours (Fife, 1995). In a few cases, people have showed near miraculous healing from arthritis and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It was reported that one man was brought into a hospital brain-dead as a direct result of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. This man was an organ donor so doctors wanted to purify his organs. They wheeled him and his life support system into the chamber where three days later the organs were purified as the man walked out of the hospital completely recovered with complete memory (Baugh, Battle).

It has even been suggested that as a direct result of higher pressure and oxygen that mosquitoes would not even bite you before the Flood. Today, it is the female mosquito which bites in order to receive nutrients from the oxygen in your blood. However, in the pre-Flood atmosphere the higher oxygen content and air pressure would keep this annoying pest satisfied (Baugh, Symphony). Again this is something theorized about the unobserved past so we can not be sure but scientifically speaking, it would certainly be possible.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is much less today than during the pre-Flood era. It has been proposed that we had 8 times the amount we currently have today (from 0.026% to .25%) which again fits perfectly with the abundant vegetation of the Creation model (Discover, Dec. 1994, p.32).

The higher pressure and carbon dioxide content also explain why such lush, huge vegetation is seen in the fossil record. At K O University in Tokyo Japan, Dr. Kei Moris did some fascinating studies on a cherry tomato plant (The kind that get about 2-3 feet tall and live about 2-3 months with cherry size tomatoes). He wanted to maximize the potential of this tomato plants growth so he put it into a cylinder by which he could pump up the air pressure. Dr. Moris reasoned the plant would take in more carbon dioxide faster but inadvertently he was recreating a pre-flood atmosphere. Dr. Moris wanted to also rid the harmful rays of the sun so he brought sunlight to his basement through fiber optics, again inadvertently recreating the pre-Flood world. After two years had passed Kei Moris had a cherry tomato plant that stood over 14 feet tall, had 903 tomatoes that were baseball size (Brown, Secret,p 159). Today, this plant is still living after 14 years and is over 40 feet tall bearing 15,000 very large tomatoes (Baugh, Symphony). Being created as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30), this fits well into the "very good" world that God made.

Genesis 2:5 mentions that it did not rain until the time of the Flood and therefore natural streams watered the earth. With a firmament, a sub tropical climate would be expected all over the world because it would serve as a greenhouse, holding in the heat but not getting to hot. High and low air pressure systems would not form which would not allow clouds to form, which would not allow rain. This also explains why there was no rainbow before the Flood.

One final adjustment of our thinking about the pre-Flood world involves the electromagnetic field of the earth. Scientists have measured the electromagnetic field of the earths atmosphere for over a century and we now know that it has declined nearly 7% in only 130 years (McDonald). Not only does this present a healthier atmosphere in the past but a young one as well. According to this, if you would go back in time only 15 to 20,000 years ago, we would have the electromagnetic field of a neutron star and atoms could not hold together; the planet could not exist (Baugh, Symphony). Likewise, 2,000 years into the future, the field will cease and life will not be possible either (Nature, Vol. 278, 1987).

Further evidence shows that the electromagnetic field influences the body in incredible ways. In fact, it affects everything from molecules to man and without it, cells can not divide during the process of mitosis (Dubrov, p. 61). Evidence is also present showing that this much needed field was not only stronger in the past but may have even held steady before the Flood, thereby creating a better atmosphere. How and why could this be? Answer: the firmament held the energy in place (Baugh, Symphony).

My favorite example of the benefit of the higher electromagnet currents on our bodies has to deal with snakes. Today, if one is bit by a rattlesnake, a long process of treatment and pain is the outlook, unless you have a stun gun. Yes, a stun gun. I myself have one which delivers only 36,000 volts of D.C. current. If I was bit, I would take the stun gun and zap myself near the bite, again perpendicular to the first zap, and a third time just because it felt good. I probably would not even go to the hospital after this. New evidence is showing that electricity can be a cure for all kinds of venomous bites, including bees, spiders, mosquitoes and snakes. Snake venom is made up of mainly proteins and enzymes which are chemically bonded together and therefore make them impossible for your body to assimilate in any beneficial way. However, electricity breaks those bonds allowing your body to take in the protein and it turns out to be beneficial to you. So in the pre-Flood world, after the curse, if you were bit by a snake, it wouldn't affect you because of the higher electromagnetic field. Also, the wound from the bite would heal much faster because the higher oxygen and pressure would aid in the healing.

The Brown Recluse Spider is one of the most dreadful of all spiders. When you get bit by a Brown Recluse it literally rots your flesh down to the bone. One 10 year old girl bit by a Brown Recluse Spider (Fiddle back) was zapped on top of the bite while being grounded underneath the bite (under the arm). In 24 hours, all was gone. In fact, the Oklahoma State Medical Journal recorded that from September of 1988 to September of 1989, 21 cases were confirmed where a Brown Recluse Spider bite had been "zapped" for treatment and all cases were cured within one treatment (Osborn, p.9).

Regarding snakes, Dr Ronald Guderian, a missionary doctor from Seattle has successfully treated more than 60 humans with snakebites by electric shock. Tests have shown that the enzymes in snake venom are destructive to human tissue but when these enzymes are first "zapped" and than put in test tubes with human flesh, they no longer destroy the tissue (Outdoor Life, June 1988, p.66-68).

One farmer was stung by a bee and was deathly allergic to bee stings so he began running to his house. On the way he felt his chest beginning to tighten. In his preoccupied state, he tripped over an electric fence. Need I say more? (Outdoor Life, July 88, p76).

Many other examples have been recorded showing us what a great world the pre-Flood world must have been. If the world was like this, how come we are just discovering this now? We aren't discovering it, rather rediscovering it today! Ancient batteries have been found in Egypt showing not only the intelligence of man but perhaps also past medical treatments. For years, scientists did not know what these batteries were used for but new findings show much historical evidence relating electric shock to medicine. Electric fish were used for medicinal purposes by the Greeks and Romans while bronze and iron needles with electrical devices have been found in Seleucia which may have been used for acupuncture (which was already a standard practice in China). The ancient Scribonius Largus wrote, "For any sort of foot gout, when the pain comes on it is good to put a living black torpedo fish under his feet while standing on the beach, not dry but one on which the sea washes, until he feels that his whole foot and ankle are numb up to the knees" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16:2, p.12). All of this points to a forgotten age where memories of higher electric fields once aided in the fighting of diseases and other common ailments.

Combine all of the evidence above and we may have the answer to why not only plants were larger in the fossil record but animals as well. It appears nearly everything was better in the past. Dragon flies had wing spans up to 60 inches, cockroaches were a foot long, Bison stood 10 feet at the shoulders and the Saber tooth tiger stood 6 feet at the shoulders (Baugh, Battle). Meanwhile plants which are only 20 inches today were 120 feet as seen in the fossil record (Sounds like a cherry tomato plant doesn't it?).

quote:

Well, it's more believable than gravity. Because if it was gravity that held it up, a most miniscule disturbation of the balance of such an unstable system would cause the Earth to move towards the one side of the firmament and to crash into it.

u misunderstood. the firmament was held up because it wasnt close to the surface. i surrounded the earth, but was out in space. not very far out, but enough to be in space. but what kept it from venturing off into space, was the earth's gravity. the balance of the two held the firmament in place.

so gravity didnt hold it up. it captured it from going off into space. it wasnt unstable at all. it lasted for thousands of years(creationist timetable). which side of the firmament?? the firmament surrounded the earth. it was in the shape of a sphere. there was no side of the firmement.

quote:

Yes, heat and light can travel through water, but at great energy losses. Especially since we must assume that the firmament was at least several km thick, considering that when it rained it covered Mt. Everest. Go dive that deep and see if you receive any heat or energy from the sun. Maybe a photon or two every hour.

the firmament was less than the several km thick u presumed, because there were great underground springs, that burst forth during the flood. take note, that when it rained for the first time, the firmament wasnt the only source. there was an immense supply of water deep underground, so take that in to account.

and read the article above, if u havnt.

quote:

First of all, there is no evidence of an increased oxygen density in the atmosphere in the past. The researches show only that the amount of oxygen has been steadily increasing. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04o.html http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precam...oterostrat.html Secondly, trees and vegetation are not the primary source of oxygen. Especially since they consume oxygen and release CO2 during the night. The primary source of oxygen is sea algae. They live all the way from the arctic to tropical shores of Bermuda and they're not really influenced by the greenhouse effects or bad weather.

those scientist may have some thing right, but their timetables are wrong. there is evidence of increased oxygen density.

Source is article above.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is much less today than during the pre-Flood era. It has been proposed that we had 8 times the amount we currently have today (from 0.026% to .25%) which again fits perfectly with the abundant vegetation of the Creation model (Discover, Dec. 1994, p.32).

The higher pressure and carbon dioxide content also explain why such lush, huge vegetation is seen in the fossil record. At K O University in Tokyo Japan, Dr. Kei Moris did some fascinating studies on a cherry tomato plant (The kind that get about 2-3 feet tall and live about 2-3 months with cherry size tomatoes). He wanted to maximize the potential of this tomato plants growth so he put it into a cylinder by which he could pump up the air pressure. Dr. Moris reasoned the plant would take in more carbon dioxide faster but inadvertently he was recreating a pre-flood atmosphere. Dr. Moris wanted to also rid the harmful rays of the sun so he brought sunlight to his basement through fiber optics, again inadvertently recreating the pre-Flood world. After two years had passed Kei Moris had a cherry tomato plant that stood over 14 feet tall, had 903 tomatoes that were baseball size (Brown, Secret,p 159). Today, this plant is still living after 14 years and is over 40 feet tall bearing 15,000 very large tomatoes (Baugh, Symphony). Being created as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30), this fits well into the "very good" world that God made.

so, your right about oxygen generation in plants and algae. during the day, they made oxygen, and during the night carbon dioxide though not as much CO2 as O2. which is why scientists have found evidence for higher oxygen and carbon dioxide levels. the vegetation back then was so much that there was a huge amount of oxygen whether or not they made it at night. and with the high air pressure, the oxygen wouldnt be toxic. the evidence is in the fossil record. they've found evidence for vegetation in the sahara, and gobi deserts, the lush ancient forests of lebanon, etc.

the increased amount a metal is due to the firmament falling. the following is from the article u presented called Stratigraphy of the Proterozoic Era. My rebuttal is below it.

"Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time."

My rebuttal- Source is the Firmament Article above.

Another interesting thing about raqiya is that it also seems to refer to metal. For years Hebrew scholars have not known what to do with this definition of "firmament" so it has generally been accepted as just being a water vapor canopy. However, Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian records that the firmament was indeed crystalline (Josephus, Antiquities) as do other modern scholars. Now new scientific evidence also seems to support the idea of metal in the firmament as well.

An interesting characteristic of most metals is that they are clear in their pure form. In fact, when men went to the moon their visors on their helmets had a thin layer of pure, transparent, gold (National Geographic, Dec. 1969). Water is H2O, meaning two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. When pure H2O is compressed in experiments done today, under extremely cold conditions the Oxygen appears bluish but the two parts of Hydrogen are crystallized. At first the crystals appear transparent (can see through) and later they become opaque (can't see through). Since raqiya means to flatten, or compress together and spread out, the water (H2O) may have reacted in a similar way as seen in the above experiment, creating a firmament with hydrogen crystals (Baugh, Symphony).

Taking this a step further, microscopic examination of this crystalline, metallic hydrogen shows that a vast majority is transparent, allowing light to shine through. However, also present in smaller amounts are areas of opaque metallic hydrogen that is super conductive (Popular Science, Oct. 1989, p 25). This is important for two reasons. First of all, light would shine through only those "veins" in the firmament which were transparent. But most importantly, the opaque, super conductive material would serve as a means to hold the firmament in place. Recent experiments of super conductive material resulted in mid air suspension of certain objects. Nasa showed a photograph of a man holding super conductive material between his fingers causing a magnet to be suspended above. This would work both upside down and right side up (NASA, 1988). Keeping in mind that the earth is like a great big magnet and the firmament perhaps having super conductive metallic hydrogen, the crystalline canopy would be held in place (Discover, March 1991).

quote:

While their food was not as filled with additives as is ours today, it was much harder to have a balanced diet then than it is today simply because you couldn't just walk into a supermarket and ask for what you want but you had to spend all your day searching for a few berries.

how was it much harder to balance a diet. your thinking in today's terms. u have to think in the past's terms. the vegetation was enourmously abundant. there would be a lot more than just a few berries.

quote:

Eh? How does that answer where Cain found his first wife? Cain left Adam and Eve and never had any contact with his parents. So how did he get married with one of their daughters?

well, did u read this part, sorry i should have narrowed down this article to the topic at hand, but here it is.

Cain and the land of Nod
Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16�17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the Earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain�s wife.

�And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.�

From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain�s wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. John Calvin, commenting on these verses, states:

�From the context we may gather that Cain, before he slew his brother, had married a wife; otherwise Moses would now have related something respecting his marriage.�13

Cain was married before he went to the land of Nod. He didn�t find a wife there, but �knew� (had sexual relations with) his wife.14

Others have argued that because Cain built a �city� in the land of Nod, there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as �city� need not mean what we might imagine from the connotations of �city� today. The word meant a �walled town� or a protected encampment.15 Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a �city.� Nevertheless, there could have been many descendants of Adam on the Earth by the time of Abel�s death (see below).

quote:

Aside from the researches showing that the amounts of atmospheric oxygen steadly increased, I've already mentioned that the primary source of oxygen are algae.

today, it is the primary source. but in the pre-flood era, there was so much vegetation, that that vegetation was the primary source of oxygen.

quote:

Yeah, like in biblical times?

u have to clarify biblical times. biblical times spans all of time. from beginning to end. so which time are u talking about when peoples life expectancies were 20-30. true, there were times in which it was that, and certain people were prone to that life expectancy, like i said, desert people, nomad's, etc.

quote:

Yes, but solar radiation causes mutations in the skin, not reproductive system. You can get as much sunlight as you wish and your children would not be deformed because of it. Only your skin will.

true, ill concede to that, but cancer, and other mutations are still passed down heredically.

quote:

I see you really do have a horrible grasp of genetics, which is especially worrisome considering you had a relatively good explanation on the very site you posted. The reason why inbreeding causes genetic malformations is because every one of us has a few defective genes. Those genes are usually recessive and if you have only one half of the pair, the deformation won't appear. When two people are closely related, there is a greater chance that they have same defective genes, and therefore such defects are more likely to show. That's why it's not good to inbreed, and not because inbreeding causes mutations. Read a biology book.

heh, well, there's still a lot for me to learn. genetics for one i should study more on.

quote:

Well, I've already explained why those two effects don't play a role in our longeivity.

well, i didnt catch that. can u repeat it. but are going to say that our medical knowledge doesnt influence our longevity. that the cures of diseases doesnt increase our life expectancy. the extinction of several once common diseases dont play a role in our longevity?? having to work less hard doesnt influence our longevity either?? please explain...

wow this is getting interesting, keep on going

my evolotionary knowledge is not enough for me to take part in this discussion tho...

Who cares, religion is bullshit anyway. It is the creation of man's stupid "nature", hence it cannot be anything other than stupid!

Wow, i feel so educated on the matter

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: every single one that has been supposed discovered. with the complexity of the number of species on this earth, there should be millions of examples of inter-species transition, but all there are, are just a few questionable discoveries.

Huh? I just gave an old thread that listed a pretty exhaustive list of "transitional species", how many more do you want? Here, have a look for yourself:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2c.html

And this is only the vertebrates from a fossil record that even in modern standards and technology is still extremely dearth. You have to keep in mind that fossilization is a rarity � it�s not as if each and every bone has been well preserved in the earth for future finding. The environmental conditions alone during the time of death as well as the tens of millions of years have made it quite difficult for preservation, let alone the scavenging of predators, as well as common mistakes by human researchers during excavation (which thankfully are becoming significantly less).

quote:

what significant evolutionary jumps have been accounted for?? ide like to know, because i cant see how a dinosaur can evolve into birds, and i cant see how reproduction could have evolved from bacteria that simply copy themselves over and over again, and how bacteria can evolve into animals with specialized organs that have specific functions and with none serves no function at all, with every part of its body serving some form of specific function, and all this coming about by chance. when u find two fossils, they are either the same animal, a different breed of the same animal, or a different species altogether. if chihuahua's were extinct many years ago, and so were pitbulls. they are both dogs. u find their fossils. they seem very much alike. but they have different skull shapes, different sized skeletons, longer teeth on the pitbull, bigger bones on the pitbull, etc. the evolutionist would immediatly assume the chihuahua a different species and the pitbull another and that one evolved from the other. but no, they are just different breeds of the same species. apply this to our so-called ape relationship. there are many drawings, etc., but where are the hundreds of skeletons of our half-ape, half-human breathren??

There�s quite a lot to cover in this small paragraph alone. You ask for �significant evolutionary jumps� � what jumps are you referring to that haven�t been covered? Dinosaurs to birds? The research on that is quite exhaustive, you simply have to do a bit of reading on it. And I would highly advise doing some reading from actual paleontologists and true researchers who�ve actually done the work. The vertebrate transition list I just gave would be a good start.

Look, your argument essentially breaks down to a very common creationist argument that a �dog is still a dog�, or a �bacteria is still a bacteria�, and that nothing changes, right? Well I have some news for you � evolution agrees with this sentiment to a very large extent. In no way does evolution predict that a cat will magically turn into a dog with just a coupla mutations here and there, or a bacteria turning into multiple celled organisms with hands and feet to walk with. If a particular population of critters are successful in their given niche, well then they�re going to continue to be exactly as they are with few if any modifications. And if there�s one thing to know about bacteria, it�s that they are by far the most successful critters on this earth hands down.

side note: Actually the �story� of single-celled organisms moving toward multiple-celled organisms is a pretty murky topic for the obvious reason that we�re talking about invertebrate (i.e. non-fossilized) critters here, coupled with the even more obvious reason that we�re talking about BILLIONS of years ago. Therefore it�s very difficult to �trace� back and understand the evolutionary ladder with these organisms. Nevertheless, the most promising research on this step tends to lead towards symbiotic relationships between single-celled organisms. Probably the most prominent name regarding this idea (actually was pretty much the creator of the theory) is Lynn Margulis. Some of her stuff is pretty �out there�, but her work on symbiosis has opened up a great many doors into our understanding of this step..

Evolution does predict, however, that speciation will occur when a population has a reproductive barrier of some sort that prevents hybridization with the other members of the species, whether it be a gradual thing such as an increase in hybrid incompatibility between populations over many generations, a sudden geographical separation and differential environmental pressures (geographical isolation) ,or it can also be sympatric based on changing host specificity, or some behavioral change necessitated by occupation of a novel or marginal niche, etc etc etc. So when these given situations occur, speciation occurs, nothing else.

quote:

by historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence. someone asked, maybe by you, how can creationism be scienctific. i provided an article that explained it. now your going to just cast it aside because your worldview doesnt allow for the existance of a god or creator. really, that's why i think this debate is useless, because our presuppositions are so opposite each other, we can only go back and forth, back and forth.

You are assuming quite a bit about those who understand and accept evolution. Would it surprise you to know that over 40% of evolutionary researchers believe in a deity of some sort one way or another, including many who call themselves Christians? I would highly suggest a book to you by Ken Miller called �Finding Darwin�s God: A Scientist�s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution�. Many Christians, including the Pope himself accept evolution quite easily. It�s not just for us darn secularists. Once you separate the concept of faith with scientific fact and theory, the understanding between the two becomes a bit more easier.

quote:

here is the best link i can provide for my arguement against evolution. dont just put it off as religion and say its false. put up some evidence yourself debunking the information this link provides. http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

I had a quick look at that link, and I have to say that there�s much that�s left to be desired. For example, the first essay is by a guy named Ashby Camp, who�s fairly well-known in the young earth creationist (YEC) circles. His central argument boils down to the well known point of it�s seemingly impossible or the odds are so against such mutations to happen, therefore godidit. This is the very common argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance (i.e. God of the Gaps) fallacy, as well as argument from false dichotomy (why would the creationist story be the only alternative by default even if evolution was false?). IOW, he presents absolutely no POSITIVE, verifiable evidence for his case of creationism � rather he merely attempts to knock down evolutionary theory in hopes for bolstering his case. Another common flaw is that many/most YEC�s tend to refer back to very dated material, which is evident in his argument here (1967, 1959). This occurs primarily because the YEC argument is a pretty dated argument to begin with that has been refuted quite a long time ago. I�m sorry to break your bubble on this, but in truth you�re much better off with some of the more modern creationist arguments like intelligent design (ID), which actually you alluded to later (and I�ll cover that later too). Lastly, Camp utilizes what seems to be an impressive (though dated) list of scientists and researchers to bolster his case against evolution, which is yet another common tactic of creationists known as argument from authority. Two problems almost always arise out of this:

1. The scientists used are actually creationists, often times with no true biological or paleontological credentials, and are thus a tad bit biased in their so-called �research�.

2. The scientists are prominent evolutionary researchers but the quotes used are taken completely out of context (i.e. quote mining).

I didn�t have too much time to research the quotes used, but I do know that this particular essay falls completely with problem #1 � Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Himmlefarb, Grass�, all known creationists. Are we to take their authoritative word simply because they say so? Sorry, no dice. And besides, you think Camp is only practicing fallacious logic in this little essay? Think again:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

Another part of that website attempts to show that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed.

Silly. Just plain fucking silly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

And if you don�t like that version, here�s a version from a YEC website you should feel comfortable with:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...rwin_recant.asp

Another part of the website discusses the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We�ve had this discussion before on this old YEC fallacy, starting here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...n&pagenumber=12

You�re free to hop in on that thread anytime you wish. For the sake of trying to keep this thread on as few tangents as possible, I would suggest keeping any 2LOT arguments over there.

quote:

have u ever heard of the mitochondrial adam and eve?? http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGdna.htm

I�m not sure how that bolsters a case for creationism. It simply states that our dna comes from a common ancestor. So by default we assume it�s Eve? Huh? Well by default we can just as easily assume it can from the first evolutionary ancestor. Actually it�s more likely that the dna ancestor was NOT the first ancestor alive � rather, an rna ancestor was much more likely.

I suggest that unless you�re well versed in genetics and molecular biology that you would leave this topic alone. It does not in any way support your case for YEC. You should trust me on this one.

quote:

no, because water can be brown, green, and other colors than blue. but here's an answer to your firmament question. skip the first section-THE DARWINIAN FISH. http://home.gowyo.com/creation/FtB4.htm well, the firmament was out in space. so thats what held it up. but what kept it from going astray was the earth's gravity. and ill also say god held it up, but u wouldnt believe that. there would be no nucleur winter because heat can travel through water, and so can light. and the layer of water would have a greenhouse effect, not a nucleur winter effect. that is why all the earth had very mild, pleasant temperatures, and no bad weather, until the firmament fell. oxygen density - lets see, no deserts + no massive deforestation + no bad weather + no habitat destruction = would mean much much more vegetation(which creates oxygen) than today, and with it plenty of water, and with a greenhouse effect on the planet, the oxygen density would be much higher. measure the oxygen density outside, and then go inside a greenhouse, and measure the oxygen density inside the greenhouse. there's a scientific analysis right there supporting firmament. it was the case in biblical times because that is what was described in the bible, and historically. u may live longer, but your DNA has too many mutations, and your enviroment has too many contaminants for you to live longer than 120 years of age. back then, there was no industry, pollutants, etc. oxygen is whats needed to carry out all the chemical reactions in your body, so the more of it you have, the more chemical reactions can take place in your body(more energy, more everything), which means longer life. protected from radiation and a very healthy diet of natural foods(no preservatives or additives), and a very pure enviroment, yes, u can live much longer than 100 years. There's your answer. skip to the section THE FIRST MAN. http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../cains_wife.asp less water = less vegetation = less oxygen. rarely was life-expectancy ever 20-30 years, except in some parts of time in specific places such as ancient egypt, nomadic tribes, etc. there are still places today with such life expectancies, in africa, and remote jungles. solar radiation is known to cause mutations and cancer. cancer is a mutation. inbreeding causes mutations. its like trying to put two +sides of a magnet together. it's just hard for them to come together, hence inbreeding would cause bad genes. with the advent of automobiles, and technology, especially medically-wise, our lives are much easier than they used to be, and our health is helped greatly by our gained knowledge of health and of medicine. so no, we are not getting more oxygen and yes the sun is shining brighter, less ozone.

I�m going to skip over geography simply because it�s not my area. Someone else can be more than welcome to tackle this in detail if they so desire. Although I�m extremely skeptical of such conclusions, esp. if they come from the same source(s) depicted above, which I�ll get into later.

quote:

after researching some, i have found that homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom. i do concede to that. and finally i will say this. though i am against gay marraige and homosexuality, if they are able to get married then, great for them, its bad in my mind, but they have that freedom to obtain whatever rights they want. the purpose of procreation is to have offspring. homosexual sex cannot rear offspring. in your your own law of natural selection. only the strongest survive. how can u survive if u cant reproduce. but extinction is also a part of nature...

It may surprise you that there is some actual research out there that has brought homosexuality in nature and it�s purpose into question. I haven�t looked it up in detail yet, but it�s out there somewhere. Regardless, I understand that you believe it�s wrong and immoral, and true it certainly goes against procreation. But it does beg the question as to why it occurs in nature. And it also begs into question why heterosexuals, including many Christians commit acts of sodomy, since that certainly doesn�t give way to procreation either. But it�s your opinion and I�ll just agree to disagree on this point.

quote:

im not debating with both of you

Oh come now, your opinions and postings are subject to public scrutiny, not just a one on one debate. Besides, I think it�s important to discuss this topic, regardless of who brings it up or who refutes.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Please excuse my grammar or any spelling mistakes. i know i make a few the first time around. usually i proof-read, but i dont always have the time or i just dont want to. but what its certainly not bad enough to not know what im saying, but excuse me if it does, and tell me.

Your grammar or the grammar of the authors you seemingly have quoted in full?

quote:

My answer to archeopteryx and the very few meager examples evolution has put up about inter-species transition in the fossil record. Source

I think we can put to rest the argument of a few �meager� examples. The examples are myriad, and it only takes a little bit of research on your part to see.

quote:

The Fossil Record In theory, according to Darwinian evolution, there should be a continuum of life all about us representing every conceivable kind of intermediate between various kinds. Indeed, if observations could produce such a continuum, the evidence for transitional development would be greatly strengthened. But as it is, nature is clumped in discrete blocks, discrete kinds, more like separate bushes with diversity than one continuous tree of life.

A very strange opening paragraph. The author first distorts evolutionary theory right off the bat by attempting to describe it as a linear progressive manner, which is a common creationist thought and is quite incorrect. But then he somehow tries to disprove evolution in his last sentence by describing exactly what evolution is.

Quite strange indeed.

quote:

Evolutionists reply that the present state is due to widespread extinctions of the various intervening steps which connected the various kinds long ago. If so, should not these past forms be well represented in the fossil record? But the fossil record does not show the millions of tiny transitional life forms which Darwin�s theory postulated must have existed.

Umm, yeah it does, where has this author been? Is he still living in the times of Darwin or something?

quote:

Darwin himself admitted "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (The Origin of Species, page 332, cited from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 188.)

Quote mining, how original (#2.4)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

quote:

He supposed another 100 years of digging would supply the gaps. It hasn�t. Evolutionists have searched diligently for the dramatic "missing links" between all the variety of basic kinds.

Alright, I�ve had about enough of YEC�s throwing around the word �kinds� as if it�s supposed to mean something scientific. What the fuck is �kinds� in creationist speak, and how on earth does that fucking relate to the biodiversity we see today in any way, shape or form? What fucking classification system is that?

Sorry for that rant, back to topic � this guy seems to like sticking his fingers in his ears and crying out, �it doesn�t exist!!!� when it�s sitting right on his lap.

quote:

In spite of the incredible effort, talent and money expended in this search, only a few examples of possible transition species can be identified.

Here�s an interesting note to understand about YEC writers in general � the �no transitions� argument is still utilized so exhaustively despite the literally millions of pieces of evidence sitting right in front of them. A number of things happen as a result �

1. Moving the goalposts
-Some YEC�s will acknowledge (finally) a transitional species in front of them, but will then try to cut it down even further by asking for transitional species from the transitions.
And when those are indeed found, they continue to ask for further transitions and, well you get the picture. It really begs the question � when will you ever be satisfied when you see the evidence right in front of you?

2. Redefining �transitional� species.
- They will refer to a fossil which is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they couldn't be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil which shows a mosaic of features from an older and a more recent organism, which we see quite readily everyday.

Let�s keep in mind that transitional fossils may coexist with these �gaps� in the fossil record. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out. If you want further detail on that, I�ll supply it if necessary.

Mark Isaac describes the concept of �transitional fossils� pretty well in terms of our cognitive propensity for categorization:

quote:

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

quote:

The link between fish and amphibians had to be given up when its most hopeful example, the coelacanth, thought to be extinct for millions of years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean in 1938. This fish, which has skeletal "leg buds," turned out to be 100% fishlike in its internal soft tissue structures and has no amphibian tendencies in its behavior. There are no candidates to be found for the link between amphibians and reptiles.

Oh boy, the old Morris argument:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

quote:

The reptile-mammal link has one example of a fossilized creature that is essentially a reptile, but with a very mammal-like jaw structure, but no other similarities can be found.

You�re also missing out skull, vertebrae, ribs, and even toes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

quote:

The strongest "missing link" is the reptile-bird link.

Hardly the �strongest�. It�s just simply a piece of the pie.

quote:

The famous Archeopteryx, a dinosaur flying reptile, may be considered a precursor to a bird, but no mechanism for the complex and extensive changes between Archeopteryx and modern birds have been found to be plausible.

There�s that fingers in the ear again. Uhh, yeah, a mechanism has been explained � mutation and natural selection. What on earth is the mechanism for YEC�s? The supernatural?

Hmm, which is more scientifically valid?

quote:

But how many transition forms should we expect to find? "Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates 261 or 79.1% have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8%" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 189). Would not this imply that a similar proportion of extinct transitions should be found?

Not necessarily, again a multitude of factors including environmental, geological, predatory, etc. come into play that cannot simply be handwaved away. Denton is one of my favorite idiot creationists. I�m more than happy to discuss his bullshit book anytime you wish.

quote:

As Darwin admitted, "That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (The Origin of Species, page 464, from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 191.)

Put the fucking quote in context!:

quote:

With respect to the absence of fossiliferous formations beneath the lowest Silurian strata, I can only recur to the hypothesis given in the ninth chapter. That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree which I require, few will be inclined to admit. If we look to long enough intervals of time, geology plainly declares that all species have changed; and they have changed in the manner which my theory requires, for they have changed slowly and in a graduated manner. We clearly see this in the fossil remains from consecutive formations invariably being much more closely related to each other, than are the fossils from formations distant from each other in time.

He�s referring to one particular strata, the Silurian which was approx. 443-417 mya, and his quote in context HARDLY looks like he�s refuting his own theory.
This pattern of misquoting/taking Darwin out of context is done over and over with YEC�s. It�s nothing new, and you need to understand this tactic.
For the sake of brevity, I�ll cut out the arguments that I�ve already addressed�.

quote:

mutations are normal, but they do not evolve. they degrade. show me one modern case in which a mutation was good. the mutations ive seen caused cancer, Multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, Muscular Distrophy, Spinal Ebifida, etc.

I�m sorry, but this is yet another common creationist claim � �there are no beneficial mutations.� The most common beneficial mutations are in your immune system � antibiotic resistence. Surely you�d concede this to be a benefit, wouldn�t you? Or sickle-cell resistence to malaria? Increase in bone density? And let�s keep in mind that the word �beneficial� is a bit tricky here and depends entirely on the environment. One type of mutation that is beneficial to one population may indeed be harmful to another population or organism. For example, your HIV drug resistance � that sure may be harmful to us, but it�s surely beneficial to the HIV virus.

Again this is a dated YEC claim, but a more modern spin on that question is that there may be acknowledgement of beneficial mutations (duh), but mutation combined with natural selection has not shown to hold true as a viable mechanism. However, this is also patently false with a myriad of data to support, but since you didn�t ask that question I�ll leave it for a later time to go over.

quote:

several very questionable skeletons, some even using animal bones not even of an ape or a man. the lucy skeleton were bones spread out over a large area in an african plain, and using animal bones of other animals that werent man or ape. your right that bones rarely last long in nature, and therefore the evidence u can bring up is very few and far in between.

A spin-off from the creationist claim on Lucy�s knee joint:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html

quote:

well, in creationism, the earth is not millions of years old, but less than 15,000.

That would be breaking the some pretty firm laws of physics if it were true.

quote:

we did live with dinsaurs at one time. there are a few passages in the bible describing bohemoth's with tails as a large as a cedar tree, which is was an enormous tree that used to inhabit lebanon. as i said, under a firmament, there is a great amounts of vegetation. the entire earth was full of vegetation. the dinosaurs had a great supply, and could prosper. but then the flood, firmament no longer there, and the post-flood world. barely any vegetation, it all has to grow back, and certainly wont grow back as it did before. dinosaurs needed very large amounts of food to survive, which they did not have, and so each dinosaur species became extinct, one by one. and so did many other species. with no more firmament acting as a greenhouse effect, the ice caps formed, it grew colder the higher up the latitudes u went. where do u think the legends of giant flying birds in native america, the legends of so many dragons in china, the legends of the knight killing the dragon in his cave. where do u think these legends came from?? legends are made to explain something, some truth. so what were they trying to explain??

You�re going to have to not resort to the Bible to support your case for dinosaurs living with man or any evidence involving the Flood. With respect to the former, there are no human fossils found with dinosaur fossils, or vice versa in their respective layers of strata. There is also a 64 million year gap where there is neither dinosaur or human fossils. If they both coexisted, there would be evidence of some sort in the fossil record where they were found in the same time places, let alone a major 64 m.y. gap between them. Besides, even if they both coexisted, that wouldn�t necessarily disprove evolution in the first place:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html

quote:

it actually is written in scientific manner. it uses the pretenses of cause and effect which that diagram was illustrating. science is a study of the relationship between cause and effect. thats how we come about our laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and innumerable other fields of science. the article uses no verses from the bible, but using logic, reason, and evidence to support its case.

First off, no it�s not written in a scientific manner. It is chalk full of conjecture, speculation, non sequitur and ad hoc rationale, and has no evidence to support it�s conclusions. You have to understand that these individuals came at this subject with their conclusion already in hand (Flood, young earth, etc.). From that they went out and attempted to piece together any type of �evidence� to support those conclusions.

If that is science, it is the most perverted form I have ever seen.

Science has never started with a conclusion and attempt to piece together evidence to support that conclusion. It simply makes observations, creates hypothesis on those observations, tests and/or gathers information specific to that particular hypothesis, and makes conclusions that either support or deny the hypothesis. Nothing more.

quote:

How are the premises faulty?? All the evidence in nature points to intelligent design. An eye, for example, is a complex organ with interdependent, complex parts. If sightedness developed from unsightedness, how would the transitional forms be useful enough for the organism to survive? The question can rightly be asked, what good is 5% of an eye? The marvelously complex and specialized structures such as wings, lungs, hearts and brains are extremely difficult to explain. They point to design, design to purpose, and purpose to intelligence.

This to me is probably the most interesting claim for a number of reasons. First off, I�m going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you are a bit unaware of the Intelligent Design argument in general. Would it surprise you to know that the main advocate (some would say the modern-day creator) of ID, Michael Behe, believes in an Old Earth, and even goes as far to say in his book, Darwin�s Black Box, that he has no problem with the evolution of humans? The second most leading advocate, Bill Dembski, has been a bit ambiguous on the subject, but in his work it�s clear that he is not against an Old Earth either.

I always find it interesting how Young Earthers have argued the ID points without recognizing this basic fact. YEC�s and IDers truly make interesting bedfellows. But of course they have but one common goal: to uproot evolution in public education (which is pretty much clearly stated on discovery.org�s website).

Your example of the eye demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the evolutionary concept on how an organ comes to be. Again you�re touching on the argument from incredulity fallacy � just because you may not understand how the complexities of the eye have evolved doesn�t entail or imply ID in any way. To simply state that the eye and sightedness can to be from �unsightedness� is damn fallacious. Indeed we see in nature the necessary gradual steps of the complexities of the eye, such as the photosensitive cell, aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve, an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin, pigment cells forming a small depression, pigment cells forming a deeper depression, the skin over the depression taking a lens shape, and muscles allowing the lens to adjust. And if you�re asking what use is only part of an eye, well it can quite useful:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

As for the article you gave, I�ll just touch on a few points:

quote:

Source Still, yet another fascinating result of such a firmament is that it solves much of our problem with C-14 dating. C-14 comes from N-14 being bombarded by cosmic radiation. The firmament would have filtered out the harmful, short wave, radiation received from the sun and therefore C-14 could not be produced (even if canopy was just water vapor). This means that living organisms before the flood would have little or no C-14 in their bodies and therefore would appear extremely old according to the C-14 dating method despite their being young in age.

Wow, just wow.

quote:

Higher air pressure is also what we would expect to see with the firmament because all atmospheric gases, which NASA shows have escaped nearly 200 miles into outer space (as far as gravitational pull would allow) would have been compressed underneath this canopy (Baugh, Battle). Today, greater air pressure with higher oxygen is of great benefit to our bodies as we see from replication of such an atmosphere in hyperbaric chambers. A hyperbaric chamber is something that allows us to control the oxygen and air pressure in a controlled environment. Amazing things happen with hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO). Normally it takes from 7 to 21 days for an open wound to heal and 53 days to completely heal. However with HBO this healing time can on average be cut in half, depending on the severity and type of problem. (Fife, 1994). Dr. William Fife is head of the HBO lab at Texas A & M University where more research is done on this subject than any other non-government center. Some of the current research done at Texas A & M seems to suggest that HBO treatment may be able to cure Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Post Polio Syndrome and heal migraine headaches within 30 to 40 minutes. Other near miraculous healings of Gas Gangrene and ear drum problems, have been treated within one to two hours (Fife, 1995). In a few cases, people have showed near miraculous healing from arthritis and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It was reported that one man was brought into a hospital brain-dead as a direct result of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. This man was an organ donor so doctors wanted to purify his organs. They wheeled him and his life support system into the chamber where three days later the organs were purified as the man walked out of the hospital completely recovered with complete memory (Baugh, Battle).

I�m just miffed by his conjecture from hyperbaric chambers to the supposed �higher oxygen levels�. Wow.

quote:

One final adjustment of our thinking about the pre-Flood world involves the electromagnetic field of the earth. Scientists have measured the electromagnetic field of the earths atmosphere for over a century and we now know that it has declined nearly 7% in only 130 years (McDonald). Not only does this present a healthier atmosphere in the past but a young one as well. According to this, if you would go back in time only 15 to 20,000 years ago, we would have the electromagnetic field of a neutron star and atoms could not hold together; the planet could not exist (Baugh, Symphony). Likewise, 2,000 years into the future, the field will cease and life will not be possible either (Nature, Vol. 278, 1987). Further evidence shows that the electromagnetic field influences the body in incredible ways. In fact, it affects everything from molecules to man and without it, cells can not divide during the process of mitosis (Dubrov, p. 61). Evidence is also present showing that this much needed field was not only stronger in the past but may have even held steady before the Flood, thereby creating a better atmosphere. How and why could this be? Answer: the firmament held the energy in place (Baugh, Symphony). My favorite example of the benefit of the higher electromagnet currents on our bodies has to deal with snakes. Today, if one is bit by a rattlesnake, a long process of treatment and pain is the outlook, unless you have a stun gun. Yes, a stun gun. I myself have one which delivers only 36,000 volts of D.C. current. If I was bit, I would take the stun gun and zap myself near the bite, again perpendicular to the first zap, and a third time just because it felt good. I probably would not even go to the hospital after this. New evidence is showing that electricity can be a cure for all kinds of venomous bites, including bees, spiders, mosquitoes and snakes. Snake venom is made up of mainly proteins and enzymes which are chemically bonded together and therefore make them impossible for your body to assimilate in any beneficial way. However, electricity breaks those bonds allowing your body to take in the protein and it turns out to be beneficial to you. So in the pre-Flood world, after the curse, if you were bit by a snake, it wouldn't affect you because of the higher electromagnetic field. Also, the wound from the bite would heal much faster because the higher oxygen and pressure would aid in the healing. The Brown Recluse Spider is one of the most dreadful of all spiders. When you get bit by a Brown Recluse it literally rots your flesh down to the bone. One 10 year old girl bit by a Brown Recluse Spider (Fiddle back) was zapped on top of the bite while being grounded underneath the bite (under the arm). In 24 hours, all was gone. In fact, the Oklahoma State Medical Journal recorded that from September of 1988 to September of 1989, 21 cases were confirmed where a Brown Recluse Spider bite had been "zapped" for treatment and all cases were cured within one treatment (Osborn, p.9). Regarding snakes, Dr Ronald Guderian, a missionary doctor from Seattle has successfully treated more than 60 humans with snakebites by electric shock. Tests have shown that the enzymes in snake venom are destructive to human tissue but when these enzymes are first "zapped" and than put in test tubes with human flesh, they no longer destroy the tissue (Outdoor Life, June 1988, p.66-68). One farmer was stung by a bee and was deathly allergic to bee stings so he began running to his house. On the way he felt his chest beginning to tighten. In his preoccupied state, he tripped over an electric fence. Need I say more? (Outdoor Life, July 88, p76).

It�s a bit strange, pretty much borderline alternative-medicine like how he refers to EM and it�s various ranges of effects on organisms and our bodies. I guess now I understand why my mom still likes to wear magnets in her shoes and on her wrists (God help her soul, I still love her to death though). But I think it would be helpful to see exactly the source that the author depicted here, Keith McDonald. I tended to wonder a bit about this, and a quick Google search confirmed my suspicions:

quote:

Having determined the true age of the earth from the Bible, the creationists then, in the true spirit of irrationalism and pseudo-science, proceeded to find proofs of such an age. Certainly the most often referred to "proof" is the one forwarded by Thomas G. Barnes, another "creation scientist" from the ICR. His proof involve the strength of the earth's magnetic field. Citing a 1967 paper by two legitimate (as opposed to the creationists) geophysicists, Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst, An Analysis of the Earths Magnetic Field From 1835-1965, Barnes claimed that the magnetic field of the earth had been declining, with the energy dissipated through heat, in an exponential fashion since the beginning of the data collected by these two. He calculated the half-life of this exponential decline to be 1,400 years. He further claimed that it was only from 1835 onwards that we have reliable data on the earth's magnetic field. Thus extrapolating backwards from these results, he concluded that the earth's magnetic field more than 10,000 years ago would be unreasonably high. Which means, so says this creationist, that the age of the earth must be less than 10,000 years old: exactly what Morris concluded from reading the Scriptures! Unfortunately for the creationists, this happy coincidence of "scientific" data and scriptural reading is based on Barnes bending his data completely out of shape. In the first place, McDonald and Gunst, in the paper cited by Barnes, explicitly stated that the magnetic energy was not dissipated by heating. The energy is merely changed into another type of magnetic field (from the dipole to the quadrupole field). In other words the total magnetic energy of the earth has not changed much. Barnes had used only the dipole values and ignored the rest in order to make his argument work. The most clear-cut proof of Barnes fallacious argument is his assertion that the exists no reliable data on the earth's magnetic field before 1835. This is just downright wrong. There are reliable and well documented data on the strengths of the earth's magnetic field dating back several thousand years. To show how this is possible, a little explanation would help here. Archaeologists had long developed, and used, detailed and reliable chronologies based on pottery styles and types for various cultures. Pottery is also used to study Paleomagnetism, which is the study of ancient magnetic fields of the earth. This is possible because the process of making pottery includes the heating up and then cooling the down of the clay. When the pottery cools below a certain temperature, called the Curie Temperature, it becomes permanently magnetized by the earth's magnetic field. Thus, the strengths of the earth's magnetic field is "fossilized" in the baked clay. The magnetic moments of these can be accurately measured. Together with the dating of the various potteries based on the archaeologists' method, a history of the earth's magnetic field dating back several thousand years can be constructed. Using this information, it can be seen that Barnes' "exponential decline" of the earth's magnetic field is nothing more than a figment of his imagination. For instance these results tell us that 4200 years, or three Barnes' "half-lives", ago - where according to his prediction the earth's magnetic field must have been eight times what it is today - the strength of the earth magnetic field was actually slightly weaker than what it is today! Thus, the "strongest" creationists argument for a young earth is based on twisting some scientific data and ignoring others. It speaks volume about both the credibility and the capability of these creation "scientists." http://www.animalliberationfront.co...n%20of%20Pascal's%20Wager%20Scientific%20Creationism%20Examined.htm

And going from this fallacious argument to how EMF effects us to supporting the case for the Flood is, well, I just don�t know what to say. It�s beyond mere conjecture. It�s just plain silly.

As for the rest of the article again I�ll admit I�m not too familiar with geology and geography, but some of the pieces I think certainly come into question regarding the �vapor canopy�, the firmament, oxygen levels, plant vegetation, and so forth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...pics/flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/

I�m afraid the Flood idea is far from being scientific.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: My answer to archeopteryx and the very few meager examples evolution has put up about inter-species transition in the fossil record. Source The Fossil Record In theory, according to Darwinian evolution, there should be a continuum of life all about us representing every conceivable kind of intermediate between various kinds. Indeed, if observations could produce such a continuum, the evidence for transitional development would be greatly strengthened. But as it is, nature is clumped in discrete blocks, discrete kinds, more like separate bushes with diversity than one continuous tree of life. Evolutionists reply that the present state is due to widespread extinctions of the various intervening steps which connected the various kinds long ago. If so, should not these past forms be well represented in the fossil record? But the fossil record does not show the millions of tiny transitional life forms which Darwin�s theory postulated must have existed. Darwin himself admitted "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (The Origin of Species, page 332, cited from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 188.) He supposed another 100 years of digging would supply the gaps. It hasn�t. Evolutionists have searched diligently for the dramatic "missing links" between all the variety of basic kinds. In spite of the incredible effort, talent and money expended in this search, only a few examples of possible transition species can be identified. The link between fish and amphibians had to be given up when its most hopeful example, the coelacanth, thought to be extinct for millions of years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean in 1938. This fish, which has skeletal "leg buds," turned out to be 100% fishlike in its internal soft tissue structures and has no amphibian tendencies in its behavior. There are no candidates to be found for the link between amphibians and reptiles. The reptile-mammal link has one example of a fossilized creature that is essentially a reptile, but with a very mammal-like jaw structure, but no other similarities can be found. The strongest "missing link" is the reptile-bird link. The famous Archeopteryx, a dinosaur flying reptile, may be considered a precursor to a bird, but no mechanism for the complex and extensive changes between Archeopteryx and modern birds have been found to be plausible. But how many transition forms should we expect to find? "Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates 261 or 79.1% have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8%" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 189). Would not this imply that a similar proportion of extinct transitions should be found? As Darwin admitted, "That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (The Origin of Species, page 464, from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 191.) The fact that the fossil record did not contain the anticipated multitudes of transitional life forms Darwin�s theory implied was to them evidence that the fossil record was incomplete. It was a bad excuse then. Now, after 139 years of digging have produced literally tons of fossil data with no substantial evidence of transitional forms, it is a disaster. Indeed, groups of organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record and are distinct from other groups from their earliest appearance.

Well, first of all transitional fossils are just that, transitional. Evolution takes relatively quick jumps when the species need to adapt to different environments, so the transitional species last for a pretty short amount of time and their population groups are very small. Australopithecus population was estimated at only several hundred members. Secondly, there's a fuckin 100 million year in between those fossils and current living organisms, so how can you expect to find every single transitional fossil? There were probably millions of species we will never know about because there is no fossil record of them left anywhere in the world. Science and paleontology aren't omniscient. We can't find every single species member simply because most have been lost and eaten away. However, we did find archeopteryx and a few other semi-reptilian birds which don't fall into the creationism theory at all. Regardless of that, here's a list of transitional fossils posted earlier by Mr Opus:

quote:

Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record (We start off with primitive jawless fish.) Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays �Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles. �Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales. GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks. �Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers! �Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins. �Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks. �Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc. �Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray. �Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous. A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish. Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish �Upper Silurian -- first little scales found. GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified. �Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish. �Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord. �Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws. �Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish. �Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws. �Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder. Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!). Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. �Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish. �Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. �Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike. �Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins. �Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable." GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet. �Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did. �Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc. More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land. Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible! Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche. In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial. Transitions among amphibians �Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely). Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc. �Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc. �Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc. �Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc. �Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc. �Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc. From there we jump to the Mesozoic: �Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short). �Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog. �Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander. Finally, here's a recently found fossil: �Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma. Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles) The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988) �Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count. �Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches. �Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though. �Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles. The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs. The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals. Some transitions among reptiles I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988) �Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids. Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs: �Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell. �Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993) �Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc.. �Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described. Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info) �Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above �Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum. �Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991) GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian. �Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds). �Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones. �Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though. �Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur. �Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs. Some species-to-species transitions: �De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria. �Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include: 1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus 2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus. 3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus 4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus. All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)

quote:

what else can they be?? to an evolutionist paleontologist, they would say it is one missing link between species. example: rat-like animal evolving into a pitbull.

No a chiuaua isn't a rat like animal, the only thing comparable to a rat is its size. The fact that you wouldn't notice a significant difference between a rat and a chiuaua skeleton should not be extrapolated to the entire community of paleontologists. There are clear similarities between chiuaua skeletons and those of pitbulls. Their jaws are essentially the same, only the chiuauas are smaller. Rats on the other hand have a totally different bone structure.

quote:

where's the transitional fossils??

Well, you kinda answered the question you gave in the earlier article. There probably are a few transitional fossils of wolves turning into chiuauas, but considering it's hard to find transitional fossils of something that happened 5000 years ago, how can you expect that 2000 times older transitional fossils are commonplace?

quote:

oh, this new disvoery of the chihuahua skeleton looks kind of like a rat, and kind of like a pitbull. that will be the transitional missing link. how do u know if they can interbreed if both dogs are extinct?? (THEORETICALLY SPEAKING- I MADE AN EXAMPLE IN THE LAST POST)

Again, you're assuming that average paleontologists have education of average high school kids which is not the case. The only resemblence chiuaua has with a rat is it's size, and size is not the thing that determines the relation between species. You can not always be 100% certain that two species can or can not interbreed, you can only determine whether there was a probability of them interbreeding or not. We can't be sure if humans and neanderthals could interbreed. But we can be sure that rats and chiuauas couldn't, even if they were extinct, because their jaws show that they're not from the same branch of mammals.

quote:

the fact that humans have been in control of the breeding of dogs means nothing. there are still different kinds of dogs, but they are still dogs.

It does mean something because we developed odd looking species which would never occur in nature. Regardless of that, chiuauas and pitt buls are effectively not able to breed because of their size difference. If we would let them live for million years side by side, they would never interbreed and they would develop enough mutations to have their genes become incompatible.[/quote]

quote:

just like in nature, there are many kinds of birds, but they're still birds.

Dogs are a same species. Birds aren't.

quote:

how will separation of two breeds for a long period of time, eventually produce two different species. where's the evidence?

By neutral mutations of genes which make genetic codes incompatible. Take this for example:

quote:

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses. WH X WH - 75% P1 X P1 - 95% P2 X P2 - 80% P1 X P2 - 77% WH X P1 - 0% WH X P2 - 0% They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations. Source: J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220.

quote:

where's the thousands, really millions of examples of these transitions?? all evolutionists have are few very questionable examples. mutations are normal, but they do not evolve. they degrade. show me one modern case in which a mutation was good. the mutations ive seen caused cancer, Multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, Muscular Distrophy, Spinal Ebifida, etc.

Nylon eating bacteria? Dark moths in British industrial cities? T cell mutation that made some african prostitutes immune to HIV? Light skinned people in polar regions and dark skinned people living near equator?

quote:

several very questionable skeletons, some even using animal bones not even of an ape or a man. the lucy skeleton were bones spread out over a large area in an african plain, and using animal bones of other animals that werent man or ape. your right that bones rarely last long in nature, and therefore the evidence u can bring up is very few and far in between.

No they're not man nor ape. They're in between. How can any other animal have a humanoid femur or a humanoid skull?

quote:

well, in creationism, the earth is not millions of years old, but less than 15,000.

Ok, let's explain this again. Let's assume that the speed of light is constant. We see distant astronomical objects. We know their luminosity based on their spectral characteristic. Their luminosity is directly correlated to their size, so we can determine their distance. Considering that their light did reach us after travelling over billions of light years, we know that the universe is several billion years old. What if speed of light was not constant? If it was slower in the past, the universe would be even older. If the speed of light was higher in the past, as required by creationist theory, we would see only our local neighbourhood of stars, we would not even be able to observe the outer rims of our own galaxy. You see, if we suppose that light speed suddenly slowed down, that would mean that the old light from the stars hit the earth years ago, while the new one still hasn't come. So we would only be able to see an area around us that is visible in accordance to new speed of light, and that would be a sphere with a 15000 ly diameter. We obviously see more than that, so the assumption is false.

quote:

we did live with dinsaurs at one time. there are a few passages in the bible describing bohemoth's with tails as a large as a cedar tree, which is was an enormous tree that used to inhabit lebanon.

Why does then the radiometric data show that humans and dinosaurs lived in totally different periods?

quote:

as i said, under a firmament, there is a great amounts of vegetation. the entire earth was full of vegetation. the dinosaurs had a great supply, and could prosper. but then the flood, firmament no longer there, and the post-flood world. barely any vegetation, it all has to grow back, and certainly wont grow back as it did before. dinosaurs needed very large amounts of food to survive, which they did not have, and so each dinosaur species became extinct, one by one. and so did many other species. with no more firmament acting as a greenhouse effect, the ice caps formed, it grew colder the higher up the latitudes u went.

So what about small dinosaurs? They weren't all 20m high. There were many chicken sized ones.

quote:

where do u think the legends of giant flying birds in native america, the legends of so many dragons in china, the legends of the knight killing the dragon in his cave. where do u think these legends came from?? legends are made to explain something, some truth. so what were they trying to explain??

Are you saying that there was a period of time when the earth was populated with elves, fairies, dwarves, giants, unicorns, satyrs, fauns, minotaurs, and oh let's not forget, pagan gods?

quote:

it actually is written in scientific manner. it uses the pretenses of cause and effect which that diagram was illustrating. science is a study of the relationship between cause and effect. thats how we come about our laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and innumerable other fields of science. the article uses no verses from the bible, but using logic, reason, and evidence to support its case.

No it is not written in a scientific manner and everyone who's past high school education sees that. It is written in a charlatanistic manner because it's primary claim is unfounded and all the claims made afterwards are based upon that primary claim.

quote:

How are the premises faulty?? All the evidence in nature points to intelligent design. An eye, for example, is a complex organ with interdependent, complex parts. If sightedness developed from unsightedness, how would the transitional forms be useful enough for the organism to survive? The question can rightly be asked, what good is 5% of an eye? The marvelously complex and specialized structures such as wings, lungs, hearts and brains are extremely difficult to explain. They point to design, design to purpose, and purpose to intelligence.

Nice copy-paste from the previous article. Eyes originated as a light sensing mechanism. A change in light intensity meant danger. Some primitive animals still have that sort of "eyes". The animals didn't develop one complex part of the eye after the other.

quote:

heh, dont put it off too long. that is best comprehensive, talk about all subjects link i can put forth.

It's not a single article, it's many links, that's why I'm lazy.

quote:

how could eve have children without adam?? so therefore, there was adam. dont tell me, our earliest ancestor was A-sexual.

Again your level of education shines through. Mitochondrial DNA exists only in mitochondrial organelles of the cells that are designed to break down ATP and free radicals. It is not a part of our regular DNA. Mitochondria appeared in the earliest bacteria and were probably parasitic small bacteria which later adopted a symbiotic role. Only female egg cells contain mitochondria. That's why we inherit them only from our mothers. For all we know our one female common ancestor could have had 20 different sexual partners, we'd still have the same mDNA.

quote:

did u read the article on the firmament?? because the color of the water really wasnt the point.

I reffered to the color of the firmament to explain the most likely origin of the myth.

quote:

i just tried it, and it worked. but ill post the article then. Source A Firmament = A Great World! There is vast Biblical and scientific evidence showing a primordial paradise. Legends and traditions record that some people did not experience helpless old age. The Sumerians and Egyptians record that there was no sin on the earth, the crocodile did not seize prey and the serpent did not bite. From China as well we find records that tell animals and birds were led about without restraint. (ICR, Impact 192) Could this have really happened? The Bible clearly says it did and science now seems to suggest the possibility. One of the major reasons this paradise was in place may be due to the firmament created in the sky by God on the second day. "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" (Genesis 1:6-7). During creation there was both a vertical and horizontal separation of water. The "horizontal" separated the dry land from the water and the "vertical" separated water from water thus creating the firmament. Therefore we have an indication that water was involved in this canopy. We do not know for sure what it was made of but other possible clues come from the Hebrew word for firmament, raqiya (raw-kee'-ah). Raqiya means to flatten out and extend a solid vault or canopy.

Hehe, rakija is schnapps in croatian

quote:

Another interesting thing about raqiya is that it also seems to refer to metal. For years Hebrew scholars have not known what to do with this definition of "firmament" so it has generally been accepted as just being a water vapor canopy. However, Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian records that the firmament was indeed crystalline (Josephus, Antiquities) as do other modern scholars. Now new scientific evidence also seems to support the idea of metal in the firmament as well. An interesting characteristic of most metals is that they are clear in their pure form. In fact, when men went to the moon their visors on their helmets had a thin layer of pure, transparent, gold (National Geographic, Dec. 1969). Water is H2O, meaning two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. When pure H2O is compressed in experiments done today, under extremely cold conditions the Oxygen appears bluish but the two parts of Hydrogen are crystallized. At first the crystals appear transparent (can see through) and later they become opaque (can't see through). Since raqiya means to flatten, or compress together and spread out, the water (H2O) may have reacted in a similar way as seen in the above experiment, creating a firmament with hydrogen crystals (Baugh, Symphony). Taking this a step further, microscopic examination of this crystalline, metallic hydrogen shows that a vast majority is transparent, allowing light to shine through. However, also present in smaller amounts are areas of opaque metallic hydrogen that is super conductive (Popular Science, Oct. 1989, p 25). This is important for two reasons. First of all, light would shine through only those "veins" in the firmament which were transparent. But most importantly, the opaque, super conductive material would serve as a means to hold the firmament in place. Recent experiments of super conductive material resulted in mid air suspension of certain objects. Nasa showed a photograph of a man holding super conductive material between his fingers causing a magnet to be suspended above. This would work both upside down and right side up (NASA, 1988). Keeping in mind that the earth is like a great big magnet and the firmament perhaps having super conductive metallic hydrogen, the crystalline canopy would be held in place (Discover, March 1991). Hydrogen when excited by energy glows pink. This could perhaps indicate why plants in the pre-Flood world grew much more abundantly than today (by hundreds of feet). This is not to say that the earth would appear pink but rather pink light would be given off. It would be similar to looking through a pair of pink sunglasses where the world does not appear pink but rather all colors appear more vividly. Research has shown that plants grow better in pink light which fits the firmament model exactly (Scientific American, April 1988, p.32).

Hahahahaha, this is too much, you're totally breaking me. Yes, Thin metal layers can be made transparent if they're several microns thick, but a huge solid firmament around the Earth could not be transparent if it's made of metal, not to mention that it would immediatelly crumble under its own weight. And then the guy tries to explain it by superconductivity? Look, even if there was a very thick superconductive metal sphere around the Earth, Earth's magnetic field is not nearly strong enough to keep it floating around. And the temperature there is not cold enough to make the metal superconductive in the first place. Besides, if the metal was breached, you wouldn't get a huge flood, you'd get a huge meteor shower that would pretty much destroy the atmosphere.

Secondly, hydrogen doesn't glow pink, it glows at 656nm which is orange. And it grows when it's heated to several hundred or thousand degrees, not when it's at -150C. Now, the plant growth and light coloration may have a minor corelation, but it's measured in a few percentages.

quote:

Still, yet another fascinating result of such a firmament is that it solves much of our problem with C-14 dating. C-14 comes from N-14 being bombarded by cosmic radiation. The firmament would have filtered out the harmful, short wave, radiation received from the sun and therefore C-14 could not be produced (even if canopy was just water vapor). This means that living organisms before the flood would have little or no C-14 in their bodies and therefore would appear extremely old according to the C-14 dating method despite their being young in age. The filtering of this radiation is one of the causes for longevity of life in the pre-Flood world as well. Studies done to show the average age of people on a geographical basis, shows that people today, live shorter life spans nearer the equator (Brown, Secret, p.92). Also, it is a well known fact that the sun causes us to age much faster than normal. Recently on the Ophrah Winfrey show someone asked if there was anything to stop the aging process. The answer was that the best thing you could do was to never (summer or winter) go outside without sun screen on. The deadly, short waves of the sun are known to cause over 60 diseases today, all of which would be prevented by the firmament filtering out these rays.

People in equatorial areas live shorter because those areas are generally poorer. People in Australia live longer than Eskimos although they get much more sunlight.

quote:

Another beneficial effect of the firmament would be greater air pressure with higher oxygen (Higher oxygen without the higher air pressure would be toxic). Secular evidence from trapped air bubbles in fossilized amber shows that before the Flood we had roughly twice the atmospheric pressure and 30-35% oxygen (compared to the current 21%) (Science, Vol. 239, p. 1406). However, new evidence has caused creationists to feel this is too high because oxygen poisoning would result and therefore a better estimate may be from 23 to 25%. Higher air pressure is also what we would expect to see with the firmament because all atmospheric gases, which NASA shows have escaped nearly 200 miles into outer space (as far as gravitational pull would allow) would have been compressed underneath this canopy (Baugh, Battle). Today, greater air pressure with higher oxygen is of great benefit to our bodies as we see from replication of such an atmosphere in hyperbaric chambers. A hyperbaric chamber is something that allows us to control the oxygen and air pressure in a controlled environment. Amazing things happen with hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO). Normally it takes from 7 to 21 days for an open wound to heal and 53 days to completely heal. However with HBO this healing time can on average be cut in half, depending on the severity and type of problem. (Fife, 1994). Dr. William Fife is head of the HBO lab at Texas A & M University where more research is done on this subject than any other non-government center. Some of the current research done at Texas A & M seems to suggest that HBO treatment may be able to cure Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Post Polio Syndrome and heal migraine headaches within 30 to 40 minutes. Other near miraculous healings of Gas Gangrene and ear drum problems, have been treated within one to two hours (Fife, 1995). In a few cases, people have showed near miraculous healing from arthritis and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It was reported that one man was brought into a hospital brain-dead as a direct result of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. This man was an organ donor so doctors wanted to purify his organs. They wheeled him and his life support system into the chamber where three days later the organs were purified as the man walked out of the hospital completely recovered with complete memory (Baugh, Battle).

Yes, wow, increased amounts of oxygen help heal diseases caused by a lack of oxygen and increased pressure helps prevent diseases of the body parts sensitive to pressure.

quote:

It has even been suggested that as a direct result of higher pressure and oxygen that mosquitoes would not even bite you before the Flood. Today, it is the female mosquito which bites in order to receive nutrients from the oxygen in your blood. However, in the pre-Flood atmosphere the higher oxygen content and air pressure would keep this annoying pest satisfied (Baugh, Symphony). Again this is something theorized about the unobserved past so we can not be sure but scientifically speaking, it would certainly be possible.

Oh, no, here it goes again, hahahahahaha, feeding on oxygen only, hahaha!!!!

Look, oxygen is one of the necessary compounds needed for life, but it's not the only one. You do need to eat food, oxygen only helps you absorbing it. God that guy has biology/engeneering knowledge of a 5 year old.

quote:

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is much less today than during the pre-Flood era. It has been proposed that we had 8 times the amount we currently have today (from 0.026% to .25%) which again fits perfectly with the abundant vegetation of the Creation model (Discover, Dec. 1994, p.32). The higher pressure and carbon dioxide content also explain why such lush, huge vegetation is seen in the fossil record. At K O University in Tokyo Japan, Dr. Kei Moris did some fascinating studies on a cherry tomato plant (The kind that get about 2-3 feet tall and live about 2-3 months with cherry size tomatoes). He wanted to maximize the potential of this tomato plants growth so he put it into a cylinder by which he could pump up the air pressure. Dr. Moris reasoned the plant would take in more carbon dioxide faster but inadvertently he was recreating a pre-flood atmosphere. Dr. Moris wanted to also rid the harmful rays of the sun so he brought sunlight to his basement through fiber optics, again inadvertently recreating the pre-Flood world. After two years had passed Kei Moris had a cherry tomato plant that stood over 14 feet tall, had 903 tomatoes that were baseball size (Brown, Secret,p 159). Today, this plant is still living after 14 years and is over 40 feet tall bearing 15,000 very large tomatoes (Baugh, Symphony). Being created as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30), this fits well into the "very good" world that God made.

How are people created as vegetarians if our digestive system is incapable of consuming cellulose and our jaw structure is that of an omnivore?

quote:

Genesis 2:5 mentions that it did not rain until the time of the Flood and therefore natural streams watered the earth. With a firmament, a sub tropical climate would be expected all over the world because it would serve as a greenhouse, holding in the heat but not getting to hot. High and low air pressure systems would not form which would not allow clouds to form, which would not allow rain. This also explains why there was no rainbow before the Flood.

Yes, maybe with a firmament several milimeters thick. Not with a firmament that had to be kilometers thick.

quote:

One final adjustment of our thinking about the pre-Flood world involves the electromagnetic field of the earth. Scientists have measured the electromagnetic field of the earths atmosphere for over a century and we now know that it has declined nearly 7% in only 130 years (McDonald). Not only does this present a healthier atmosphere in the past but a young one as well. According to this, if you would go back in time only 15 to 20,000 years ago, we would have the electromagnetic field of a neutron star and atoms could not hold together; the planet could not exist (Baugh, Symphony). Likewise, 2,000 years into the future, the field will cease and life will not be possible either (Nature, Vol. 278, 1987).

Oh god, this is too much. The electromagnetic field of the earth is varying in intensity all the time. It has not linearly decreased in the last 130 years, and past records show that it has always had pretty large oscillations and even flipping upside-down. And the field is generated as a result of the earth core magnetism. Earth core has never been a fuckin neutron star and therefore the field has never been a fucking neutron star like field. Besides, let's add up the numbers here. 7% in 130 years. That means that in 15000 years, the field was several times stronger than it is now. That is not nearly the strenght of a neutron star magnetic field.

quote:

Further evidence shows that the electromagnetic field influences the body in incredible ways. In fact, it affects everything from molecules to man and without it, cells can not divide during the process of mitosis (Dubrov, p. 61). Evidence is also present showing that this much needed field was not only stronger in the past but may have even held steady before the Flood, thereby creating a better atmosphere. How and why could this be? Answer: the firmament held the energy in place (Baugh, Symphony).

What, em field influences mitosis? Maybe a 20V/m field would have a minor effect, but normal Earth's magnetic field doesn't. Otherwise astronauts would die in a few months. And wait a second, the firmament held the energy in place? What, how? So if you put a metal ring around the magnet, it won't behave like a magnet on the outside??? Right, read some basic literature on magnetism and electricity.

quote:

My favorite example of the benefit of the higher electromagnet currents on our bodies has to deal with snakes. Today, if one is bit by a rattlesnake, a long process of treatment and pain is the outlook, unless you have a stun gun. Yes, a stun gun. I myself have one which delivers only 36,000 volts of D.C. current. If I was bit, I would take the stun gun and zap myself near the bite, again perpendicular to the first zap, and a third time just because it felt good. I probably would not even go to the hospital after this. New evidence is showing that electricity can be a cure for all kinds of venomous bites, including bees, spiders, mosquitoes and snakes. Snake venom is made up of mainly proteins and enzymes which are chemically bonded together and therefore make them impossible for your body to assimilate in any beneficial way. However, electricity breaks those bonds allowing your body to take in the protein and it turns out to be beneficial to you. So in the pre-Flood world, after the curse, if you were bit by a snake, it wouldn't affect you because of the higher electromagnetic field. Also, the wound from the bite would heal much faster because the higher oxygen and pressure would aid in the healing.

Yes strong electric currents do alter protein structure, and that's why your skin gets burned when you stick a fork into a socket. But for that to take place the field has to be at least several hundred volts strong, and it would not only destroy harmful proteins, but it would burn every single fucking protein in your body. Basically this guy is saying that venomous bites by snakes were harmless because people constantly kept getting zapped with several thousand volts of electric current that destroyed venomous proteins. Try zapping yourself in the head with a stun gun and see if it makes you live longer.

quote:

The Brown Recluse Spider is one of the most dreadful of all spiders. When you get bit by a Brown Recluse it literally rots your flesh down to the bone. One 10 year old girl bit by a Brown Recluse Spider (Fiddle back) was zapped on top of the bite while being grounded underneath the bite (under the arm). In 24 hours, all was gone. In fact, the Oklahoma State Medical Journal recorded that from September of 1988 to September of 1989, 21 cases were confirmed where a Brown Recluse Spider bite had been "zapped" for treatment and all cases were cured within one treatment (Osborn, p.9).

Yes, well, she could also have her arm cut off and the poison would be removed.

quote:

Regarding snakes, Dr Ronald Guderian, a missionary doctor from Seattle has successfully treated more than 60 humans with snakebites by electric shock. Tests have shown that the enzymes in snake venom are destructive to human tissue but when these enzymes are first "zapped" and than put in test tubes with human flesh, they no longer destroy the tissue (Outdoor Life, June 1988, p.66-68). One farmer was stung by a bee and was deathly allergic to bee stings so he began running to his house. On the way he felt his chest beginning to tighten. In his preoccupied state, he tripped over an electric fence. Need I say more? (Outdoor Life, July 88, p76).

As above, high electricity changes the chemical balance of the body and destroys all the proteins, not just harmful one. So yes, if you zap yourself in a spot where the poison is taken in, you'll destroy it, but the voltage has to be high enough to cause a spark that will burn through the infected area.

quote:

Many other examples have been recorded showing us what a great world the pre-Flood world must have been. If the world was like this, how come we are just discovering this now? We aren't discovering it, rather rediscovering it today! Ancient batteries have been found in Egypt showing not only the intelligence of man but perhaps also past medical treatments. For years, scientists did not know what these batteries were used for but new findings show much historical evidence relating electric shock to medicine. Electric fish were used for medicinal purposes by the Greeks and Romans while bronze and iron needles with electrical devices have been found in Seleucia which may have been used for acupuncture (which was already a standard practice in China). The ancient Scribonius Largus wrote, "For any sort of foot gout, when the pain comes on it is good to put a living black torpedo fish under his feet while standing on the beach, not dry but one on which the sea washes, until he feels that his whole foot and ankle are numb up to the knees" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16:2, p.12). All of this points to a forgotten age where memories of higher electric fields once aided in the fighting of diseases and other common ailments.

As I said, electrical shocks can be used for medicine, but being shocked 24h/day will kill you very soon. Like saying that antibiotics cure diseases so if we eat one kg of penicillin a day we'll be in top condition. Yeah, for the morgue.

quote:

Combine all of the evidence above and we may have the answer to why not only plants were larger in the fossil record but animals as well. It appears nearly everything was better in the past. Dragon flies had wing spans up to 60 inches, cockroaches were a foot long, Bison stood 10 feet at the shoulders and the Saber tooth tiger stood 6 feet at the shoulders (Baugh, Battle). Meanwhile plants which are only 20 inches today were 120 feet as seen in the fossil record (Sounds like a cherry tomato plant doesn't it?).

Yes, "evidence". And let's not forget that the largest animal that ever lived is a whale that appeared only a few million years ago. What caused a decline in the species size was ice age, not a lack of oxygen.

quote:

u misunderstood. the firmament was held up because it wasnt close to the surface. i surrounded the earth, but was out in space. not very far out, but enough to be in space. but what kept it from venturing off into space, was the earth's gravity. the balance of the two held the firmament in place. so gravity didnt hold it up. it captured it from going off into space. it wasnt unstable at all. it lasted for thousands of years(creationist timetable). which side of the firmament?? the firmament surrounded the earth. it was in the shape of a sphere. there was no side of the firmement.

Yes, I did understand what you said, but what you don't realize is that such a system is extremely unstable and couldn't last for longer than a few hours.

quote:

the firmament was less than the several km thick u presumed, because there were great underground springs, that burst forth during the flood. take note, that when it rained for the first time, the firmament wasnt the only source. there was an immense supply of water deep underground, so take that in to account.

So where did all the water go in the end? And please, let's remember for a second here that there is not a single material existing that could withstand its own pressure of a structure that large and not fall down to earth.

quote:

those scientist may have some thing right, but their timetables are wrong. there is evidence of increased oxygen density. Source is article above.

What fascinates me is that the scientific research presented in the article refferes to different oxygen levels present millions of years ago, and not in the last few thousand years. The author conviniently left that out because those studies show that the oxygen level in the last several hundreds of thousands of years was pretty much the same. Anyway, here is the actual proposed theory:
http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...en_buildup.html

quote:

so, your right about oxygen generation in plants and algae. during the day, they made oxygen, and during the night carbon dioxide though not as much CO2 as O2.

What? O2 is oxygen. They made it only during the day.

quote:

which is why scientists have found evidence for higher oxygen and carbon dioxide levels. the vegetation back then was so much that there was a huge amount of oxygen whether or not they made it at night. and with the high air pressure, the oxygen wouldnt be toxic. the evidence is in the fossil record. they've found evidence for vegetation in the sahara, and gobi deserts, the lush ancient forests of lebanon, etc.

Again, the article talks about periods of history millions of years ago, not several thousand years ago.

quote:

the increased amount a metal is due to the firmament falling. the following is from the article u presented called Stratigraphy of the Proterozoic Era. My rebuttal is below it. "Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time." My rebuttal- Source is the Firmament Article above.

Geez, the older soils had the same amount of metal in them, the difference was that they did not have any oxygen so they didn't have metal oxides. The firmament article suggests vice-versa.

quote:

how was it much harder to balance a diet. your thinking in today's terms. u have to think in the past's terms. the vegetation was enourmously abundant. there would be a lot more than just a few berries.

Actually if we look at the vegetation from the dinosaur time period we will see that there are no fruits around whatsoever, only ferns.

quote:

well, did u read this part, sorry i should have narrowed down this article to the topic at hand, but here it is. Cain and the land of Nod Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16�17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the Earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain�s wife. �And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.� From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain�s wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. John Calvin, commenting on these verses, states: �From the context we may gather that Cain, before he slew his brother, had married a wife; otherwise Moses would now have related something respecting his marriage.�13 Cain was married before he went to the land of Nod. He didn�t find a wife there, but �knew� (had sexual relations with) his wife.14 Others have argued that because Cain built a �city� in the land of Nod, there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as �city� need not mean what we might imagine from the connotations of �city� today. The word meant a �walled town� or a protected encampment.15 Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a �city.� Nevertheless, there could have been many descendants of Adam on the Earth by the time of Abel�s death (see below).

Well, those things aren't mentioned in the bible. That's your construction.

quote:

today, it is the primary source. but in the pre-flood era, there was so much vegetation, that that vegetation was the primary source of oxygen.

Look, if all the damn earth was covered in rainforests, the algae would still make more oxygen than all the other plants combined.

quote:

u have to clarify biblical times. biblical times spans all of time. from beginning to end. so which time are u talking about when peoples life expectancies were 20-30. true, there were times in which it was that, and certain people were prone to that life expectancy, like i said, desert people, nomad's, etc.

15000-2000 years ago. Every research on excavated corpses shows that people lived on average 20-30 years.

quote:

true, ill concede to that, but cancer, and other mutations are still passed down heredically.

Yes, but there's a difference between an inherent likelihood to get a cancer and getting a canc

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. I said use your own words. You did nothing of the sort....Does it bother you to compose your own thoughts?...

Why you can never believe the Bible as fact:
Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Why I just can't quote the Bible to an atheist:
Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

im going have this summerized. the firmament article is basically the basic case for creation. i havnt found anything u guys have put up to discredit anything in it, other than "its myth", "its not scientific", blah. so lets start with it. the scholar who wrote it has a lot more knowledge than me on the subject, and so this article can make my case better than i can in my own research and words. so, now, i ask that either of you show your case against the subjects talked about in this article. no personal opinions stating facts.

example: hydrogen doesnt glow pink, it glows orange. u may be right, but how can i find out for sure?? show me something i can see for myself if it's right.

and ill say, u two are very formiable debators.

Source

A Firmament = A Great World!
There is vast Biblical and scientific evidence showing a primordial paradise. Legends and traditions record that some people did not experience helpless old age. The Sumerians and Egyptians record that there was no sin on the earth, the crocodile did not seize prey and the serpent did not bite. From China as well we find records that tell animals and birds were led about without restraint. (ICR, Impact 192) Could this have really happened? The Bible clearly says it did and science now seems to suggest the possibility.

One of the major reasons this paradise was in place may be due to the firmament created in the sky by God on the second day. "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" (Genesis 1:6-7). During creation there was both a vertical and horizontal separation of water. The "horizontal" separated the dry land from the water and the "vertical" separated water from water thus creating the firmament. Therefore we have an indication that water was involved in this canopy. We do not know for sure what it was made of but other possible clues come from the Hebrew word for firmament, raqiya (raw-kee'-ah). Raqiya means to flatten out and extend a solid vault or canopy.

Another interesting thing about raqiya is that it also seems to refer to metal. For years Hebrew scholars have not known what to do with this definition of "firmament" so it has generally been accepted as just being a water vapor canopy. However, Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian records that the firmament was indeed crystalline (Josephus, Antiquities) as do other modern scholars. Now new scientific evidence also seems to support the idea of metal in the firmament as well.

An interesting characteristic of most metals is that they are clear in their pure form. In fact, when men went to the moon their visors on their helmets had a thin layer of pure, transparent, gold (National Geographic, Dec. 1969). Water is H2O, meaning two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. When pure H2O is compressed in experiments done today, under extremely cold conditions the Oxygen appears bluish but the two parts of Hydrogen are crystallized. At first the crystals appear transparent (can see through) and later they become opaque (can't see through). Since raqiya means to flatten, or compress together and spread out, the water (H2O) may have reacted in a similar way as seen in the above experiment, creating a firmament with hydrogen crystals (Baugh, Symphony).

Taking this a step further, microscopic examination of this crystalline, metallic hydrogen shows that a vast majority is transparent, allowing light to shine through. However, also present in smaller amounts are areas of opaque metallic hydrogen that is super conductive (Popular Science, Oct. 1989, p 25). This is important for two reasons. First of all, light would shine through only those "veins" in the firmament which were transparent. But most importantly, the opaque, super conductive material would serve as a means to hold the firmament in place. Recent experiments of super conductive material resulted in mid air suspension of certain objects. Nasa showed a photograph of a man holding super conductive material between his fingers causing a magnet to be suspended above. This would work both upside down and right side up (NASA, 1988). Keeping in mind that the earth is like a great big magnet and the firmament perhaps having super conductive metallic hydrogen, the crystalline canopy would be held in place (Discover, March 1991).

Hydrogen when excited by energy glows pink. This could perhaps indicate why plants in the pre-Flood world grew much more abundantly than today (by hundreds of feet). This is not to say that the earth would appear pink but rather pink light would be given off. It would be similar to looking through a pair of pink sunglasses where the world does not appear pink but rather all colors appear more vividly. Research has shown that plants grow better in pink light which fits the firmament model exactly (Scientific American, April 1988, p.32).

Still, yet another fascinating result of such a firmament is that it solves much of our problem with C-14 dating. C-14 comes from N-14 being bombarded by cosmic radiation. The firmament would have filtered out the harmful, short wave, radiation received from the sun and therefore C-14 could not be produced (even if canopy was just water vapor). This means that living organisms before the flood would have little or no C-14 in their bodies and therefore would appear extremely old according to the C-14 dating method despite their being young in age.

The filtering of this radiation is one of the causes for longevity of life in the pre-Flood world as well. Studies done to show the average age of people on a geographical basis, shows that people today, live shorter life spans nearer the equator (Brown, Secret, p.92). Also, it is a well known fact that the sun causes us to age much faster than normal. Recently on the Ophrah Winfrey show someone asked if there was anything to stop the aging process. The answer was that the best thing you could do was to never (summer or winter) go outside without sun screen on. The deadly, short waves of the sun are known to cause over 60 diseases today, all of which would be prevented by the firmament filtering out these rays.

Another beneficial effect of the firmament would be greater air pressure with higher oxygen (Higher oxygen without the higher air pressure would be toxic). Secular evidence from trapped air bubbles in fossilized amber shows that before the Flood we had roughly twice the atmospheric pressure and 30-35% oxygen (compared to the current 21%) (Science, Vol. 239, p. 1406). However, new evidence has caused creationists to feel this is too high because oxygen poisoning would result and therefore a better estimate may be from 23 to 25%.

Higher air pressure is also what we would expect to see with the firmament because all atmospheric gases, which NASA shows have escaped nearly 200 miles into outer space (as far as gravitational pull would allow) would have been compressed underneath this canopy (Baugh, Battle). Today, greater air pressure with higher oxygen is of great benefit to our bodies as we see from replication of such an atmosphere in hyperbaric chambers. A hyperbaric chamber is something that allows us to control the oxygen and air pressure in a controlled environment. Amazing things happen with hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO). Normally it takes from 7 to 21 days for an open wound to heal and 53 days to completely heal. However with HBO this healing time can on average be cut in half, depending on the severity and type of problem. (Fife, 1994). Dr. William Fife is head of the HBO lab at Texas A & M University where more research is done on this subject than any other non-government center. Some of the current research done at Texas A & M seems to suggest that HBO treatment may be able to cure Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Post Polio Syndrome and heal migraine headaches within 30 to 40 minutes. Other near miraculous healings of Gas Gangrene and ear drum problems, have been treated within one to two hours (Fife, 1995). In a few cases, people have showed near miraculous healing from arthritis and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It was reported that one man was brought into a hospital brain-dead as a direct result of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. This man was an organ donor so doctors wanted to purify his organs. They wheeled him and his life support system into the chamber where three days later the organs were purified as the man walked out of the hospital completely recovered with complete memory (Baugh, Battle).

It has even been suggested that as a direct result of higher pressure and oxygen that mosquitoes would not even bite you before the Flood. Today, it is the female mosquito which bites in order to receive nutrients from the oxygen in your blood. However, in the pre-Flood atmosphere the higher oxygen content and air pressure would keep this annoying pest satisfied (Baugh, Symphony). Again this is something theorized about the unobserved past so we can not be sure but scientifically speaking, it would certainly be possible.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is much less today than during the pre-Flood era. It has been proposed that we had 8 times the amount we currently have today (from 0.026% to .25%) which again fits perfectly with the abundant vegetation of the Creation model (Discover, Dec. 1994, p.32).

The higher pressure and carbon dioxide content also explain why such lush, huge vegetation is seen in the fossil record. At K O University in Tokyo Japan, Dr. Kei Moris did some fascinating studies on a cherry tomato plant (The kind that get about 2-3 feet tall and live about 2-3 months with cherry size tomatoes). He wanted to maximize the potential of this tomato plants growth so he put it into a cylinder by which he could pump up the air pressure. Dr. Moris reasoned the plant would take in more carbon dioxide faster but inadvertently he was recreating a pre-flood atmosphere. Dr. Moris wanted to also rid the harmful rays of the sun so he brought sunlight to his basement through fiber optics, again inadvertently recreating the pre-Flood world. After two years had passed Kei Moris had a cherry tomato plant that stood over 14 feet tall, had 903 tomatoes that were baseball size (Brown, Secret,p 159). Today, this plant is still living after 14 years and is over 40 feet tall bearing 15,000 very large tomatoes (Baugh, Symphony). Being created as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30), this fits well into the "very good" world that God made.

Genesis 2:5 mentions that it did not rain until the time of the Flood and therefore natural streams watered the earth. With a firmament, a sub tropical climate would be expected all over the world because it would serve as a greenhouse, holding in the heat but not getting to hot. High and low air pressure systems would not form which would not allow clouds to form, which would not allow rain. This also explains why there was no rainbow before the Flood.

One final adjustment of our thinking about the pre-Flood world involves the electromagnetic field of the earth. Scientists have measured the electromagnetic field of the earths atmosphere for over a century and we now know that it has declined nearly 7% in only 130 years (McDonald). Not only does this present a healthier atmosphere in the past but a young one as well. According to this, if you would go back in time only 15 to 20,000 years ago, we would have the electromagnetic field of a neutron star and atoms could not hold together; the planet could not exist (Baugh, Symphony). Likewise, 2,000 years into the future, the field will cease and life will not be possible either (Nature, Vol. 278, 1987).

Further evidence shows that the electromagnetic field influences the body in incredible ways. In fact, it affects everything from molecules to man and without it, cells can not divide during the process of mitosis (Dubrov, p. 61). Evidence is also present showing that this much needed field was not only stronger in the past but may have even held steady before the Flood, thereby creating a better atmosphere. How and why could this be? Answer: the firmament held the energy in place (Baugh, Symphony).

My favorite example of the benefit of the higher electromagnet currents on our bodies has to deal with snakes. Today, if one is bit by a rattlesnake, a long process of treatment and pain is the outlook, unless you have a stun gun. Yes, a stun gun. I myself have one which delivers only 36,000 volts of D.C. current. If I was bit, I would take the stun gun and zap myself near the bite, again perpendicular to the first zap, and a third time just because it felt good. I probably would not even go to the hospital after this. New evidence is showing that electricity can be a cure for all kinds of venomous bites, including bees, spiders, mosquitoes and snakes. Snake venom is made up of mainly proteins and enzymes which are chemically bonded together and therefore make them impossible for your body to assimilate in any beneficial way. However, electricity breaks those bonds allowing your body to take in the protein and it turns out to be beneficial to you. So in the pre-Flood world, after the curse, if you were bit by a snake, it wouldn't affect you because of the higher electromagnetic field. Also, the wound from the bite would heal much faster because the higher oxygen and pressure would aid in the healing.

The Brown Recluse Spider is one of the most dreadful of all spiders. When you get bit by a Brown Recluse it literally rots your flesh down to the bone. One 10 year old girl bit by a Brown Recluse Spider (Fiddle back) was zapped on top of the bite while being grounded underneath the bite (under the arm). In 24 hours, all was gone. In fact, the Oklahoma State Medical Journal recorded that from September of 1988 to September of 1989, 21 cases were confirmed where a Brown Recluse Spider bite had been "zapped" for treatment and all cases were cured within one treatment (Osborn, p.9).

Regarding snakes, Dr Ronald Guderian, a missionary doctor from Seattle has successfully treated more than 60 humans with snakebites by electric shock. Tests have shown that the enzymes in snake venom are destructive to human tissue but when these enzymes are first "zapped" and than put in test tubes with human flesh, they no longer destroy the tissue (Outdoor Life, June 1988, p.66-68).

One farmer was stung by a bee and was deathly allergic to bee stings so he began running to his house. On the way he felt his chest beginning to tighten. In his preoccupied state, he tripped over an electric fence. Need I say more? (Outdoor Life, July 88, p76).

Many other examples have been recorded showing us what a great world the pre-Flood world must have been. If the world was like this, how come we are just discovering this now? We aren't discovering it, rather rediscovering it today! Ancient batteries have been found in Egypt showing not only the intelligence of man but perhaps also past medical treatments. For years, scientists did not know what these batteries were used for but new findings show much historical evidence relating electric shock to medicine. Electric fish were used for medicinal purposes by the Greeks and Romans while bronze and iron needles with electrical devices have been found in Seleucia which may have been used for acupuncture (which was already a standard practice in China). The ancient Scribonius Largus wrote, "For any sort of foot gout, when the pain comes on it is good to put a living black torpedo fish under his feet while standing on the beach, not dry but one on which the sea washes, until he feels that his whole foot and ankle are numb up to the knees" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16:2, p.12). All of this points to a forgotten age where memories of higher electric fields once aided in the fighting of diseases and other common ailments.

Combine all of the evidence above and we may have the answer to why not only plants were larger in the fossil record but animals as well. It appears nearly everything was better in the past. Dragon flies had wing spans up to 60 inches, cockroaches were a foot long, Bison stood 10 feet at the shoulders and the Saber tooth tiger stood 6 feet at the shoulders (Baugh, Battle). Meanwhile plants which are only 20 inches today were 120 feet as seen in the fossil record (Sounds like a cherry tomato plant doesn't it?).

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Why you can never believe the Bible as fact: Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. 1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Why I just can't quote the Bible to an atheist: Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

can u quote a translation of the bible that doesnt use english from monarchial england of 500 years ago. a bit out-dated and harder to understand. use the amplified or NIV versions.

Aside from the use of such words as nor, hath and thee, I believe the text is as simple as it is.

Is there a German equivalent to the King James that might help you?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: im going have this summerized. the firmament article is basically the basic case for creation. i havnt found anything u guys have put up to discredit anything in it, other than "its myth", "its not scientific", blah. so lets start with it. the scholar who wrote it has a lot more knowledge than me on the subject, and so this article can make my case better than i can in my own research and words. so, now, i ask that either of you show your case against the subjects talked about in this article. no personal opinions stating facts.

It's pointless to repost the article since I've already mentioned quite a few great errors and misconceptions in it. Which ones exactly do you find problematic?

quote:

example: hydrogen doesnt glow pink, it glows orange. u may be right, but how can i find out for sure?? show me something i can see for myself if it's right.

Eh, now that I've looked it up a bit, hydrogen gas does seem to glow red or violet when it is exposed to very high levels of UV radiation emitted by stars several thousand times larger than our sun http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~da/eic/colours.html
http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/SEM...nsations_0.html
or when it's highly charged with electric particles http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/ptable/h.htm. Otherwise it glows orange as seen here http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/ne...leases/2003/13/ (lower right part of the pic). But let's make one thing clear here. For hydrogen to glow it must be very hot (several thousand K) and in gaseous form, and for it to glow pink, it must absorb few thousand times higher amounts of UV radiation than our sun can produce (notice how it glows pink only around the hot and large blue stars, in the middle of the galaxy it glows yellow-orange). Anyway, if hydrogen was gaseous and glowing, that means that the oxygen around the supposed firmament was also in gaseous form and there was no water above the firmament, just a big hot plasma cloud of mixed hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore removing the firmament would do nothing at all, the cloud would still be floating around. The oxygen glows blue (the upper left part of the pic from the last link) so the overall color of the cloud would be some sort of a brown-violet. What is also worthy to note is that solar wind would blow off such a plasma cloud in several years, if not sooner.

quote:

and ill say, u two are very formiable debators.

Maybe because we have innumerable observable facts on our side.

Anyway, my last post didn't come through completely, so here's the ending:

er because of solar radiation or any other external influences. Those cancers do not have any interaction with the genes of your offspring because the only place where your genetic code is altered is in the cancerous spot and not in your testicles.

quote:

well, i didnt catch that. can u repeat it. but are going to say that our medical knowledge doesnt influence our longevity. that the cures of diseases doesnt increase our life expectancy. the extinction of several once common diseases dont play a role in our longevity?? having to work less hard doesnt influence our longevity either?? please explain...

I was reffering to oxygen density and solar radiation.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 It's pointless to repost the article since I've already mentioned quite a few great errors and misconceptions in it. Which ones exactly do you find problematic?

there was so much to read from both of u, i want to filter everything else out, and focus on the article, because it makes a very good case scientifically for creationism.

quote:

Hydrogen when excited by energy glows pink. This could perhaps indicate why plants in the pre-Flood world grew much more abundantly than today (by hundreds of feet). This is not to say that the earth would appear pink but rather pink light would be given off. It would be similar to looking through a pair of pink sunglasses where the world does not appear pink but rather all colors appear more vividly. Research has shown that plants grow better in pink light which fits the firmament model exactly (Scientific American, April 1988, p.32).

quote:

Eh, now that I've looked it up a bit, hydrogen gas does seem to glow red or violet when it is exposed to very high levels of UV radiation emitted by stars several thousand times larger than our sun http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~da/eic/colours.html http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/SEM...nsations_0.html or when it's highly charged with electric particles http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/ptable/h.htm. Otherwise it glows orange as seen here http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/ne...leases/2003/13/ (lower right part of the pic). But let's make one thing clear here. For hydrogen to glow it must be very hot (several thousand K) and in gaseous form, and for it to glow pink, it must absorb few thousand times higher amounts of UV radiation than our sun can produce (notice how it glows pink only around the hot and large blue stars, in the middle of the galaxy it glows yellow-orange). Anyway, if hydrogen was gaseous and glowing, that means that the oxygen around the supposed firmament was also in gaseous form and there was no water above the firmament, just a big hot plasma cloud of mixed hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore removing the firmament would do nothing at all, the cloud would still be floating around. The oxygen glows blue (the upper left part of the pic from the last link) so the overall color of the cloud would be some sort of a brown-violet. What is also worthy to note is that solar wind would blow off such a plasma cloud in several years, if not sooner.

quoting one of the sites you listed..

"Many gases glow with a characteristic color when electricity is passed through an evacuated tube containing the gas. For hydrogen, a violet-pink glow is observed. The spectrum is actually composed of four different lines, arising from four energy transitions within the atom." http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/ptable/h.htm

this only says, that when electricity passes through, the color which hydrogen shows is pink. doesnt even mention ultra violet radiation. though that could play a part as well.

quote:

Maybe because we have innumerable observable facts on our side. Anyway, my last post didn't come through completely, so here's the ending: er because of solar radiation or any other external influences. Those cancers do not have any interaction with the genes of your offspring because the only place where your genetic code is altered is in the cancerous spot and not in your testicles.

ahh, but see, u dont. evolution hasnt been observed. niether has creation, but we have accounts of the very very early early history of man, that hasnt been proven false, and the world in which he lived in. as u see, creation also has evidence to support its case, even though its basis is biblical, this article uses scientific observation to make its case. i see no bible-thumping there.

quote:

er because of solar radiation or any other external influences. Those cancers do not have any interaction with the genes of your offspring because the only place where your genetic code is altered is in the cancerous spot and not in your testicles.

i already conceded your point. i agree with you.

quote:

I was reffering to oxygen density and solar radiation.

the experiments with the hyperbolic chamber have proven that oxygen density with corresponding atmospheric pressure is extremely beneficial to the longevity of life. solar radiation reduced longevity because of its harmful effects to the skin. with firmament there, early humans would have been protected.

ugh, my head hurts

quote:

Aside from the use of such words as nor, hath and thee, I believe the text is as simple as it is. Is there a German equivalent to the King James that might help you?

The German New Testament in 1529 written by Martin Luther. but that is difficult in itself. sentence structures are different and there are so many archiac words, that its hard to understand most of it unless u study the grammar. this is why the NIV version is so popular. i prefer the Amplified Version even better because its in my understanding of english. i dont even have to look twice at a passage.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: there was so much to read from both of u, i want to filter everything else out, and focus on the article, because it makes a very good case scientifically for creationism.

Well, yeah, but I've already answered most of it. Look, it takes you 5 minutes to copy-paste such an article and it takes me 2 hours to think about it and to disprove the major nonsenses. That's why I'm not going that much in depth. As I've said, if any of my points is unclear, I'll be glad to go further in depth, but I really don't have the time to write 15 page long essays explaining every single misconception in detail that the article contains.

quote:

quoting one of the sites you listed.. "Many gases glow with a characteristic color when electricity is passed through an evacuated tube containing the gas. For hydrogen, a violet-pink glow is observed. The spectrum is actually composed of four different lines, arising from four energy transitions within the atom." http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/ptable/h.htm this only says, that when electricity passes through, the color which hydrogen shows is pink. doesnt even mention ultra violet radiation. though that could play a part as well.

You can see the UV effect on other sites. Basically it's the same thing because both electricity and UV light ionize the atoms which then start to emit photons of that wavelenght.

quote:

ahh, but see, u dont. evolution hasnt been observed. niether has creation, but we have accounts of the very very early early history of man, that hasnt been proven false, and the world in which he lived in. as u see, creation also has evidence to support its case, even though its basis is biblical, this article uses scientific observation to make its case. i see no bible-thumping there.

Yes, it has been observed. Check out that worm breeding research I quoted from Opus from one of previous discussions on the topic. And eh, yes, the article does not base its research on the bible, but on many incorrect premises. I've mentioned the major fallacies earlier, and as I've said, if you want me to elaborate on specific points ok, but I'm not spending the whole day to explain every single incorrect point the article raises.

quote:

the experiments with the hyperbolic chamber have proven that oxygen density with corresponding atmospheric pressure is extremely beneficial to the longevity of life. solar radiation reduced longevity because of its harmful effects to the skin. with firmament there, early humans would have been protected.

Like I said before, hyperbaric (increased pressure, hyperbolic means in a shape of a hyperbole -> ')(') oxygen treatment is useful for treating a range of deseases, especially those related to insufficient oxygenation of body cells (wow, guess that!), but prolonged exposure to increased amounts of oxygen, be it hyperbaric or not, produces toxic effects, probably because of too many free radicals but I'll ask Opus to confirm that. Same goes for any other medicine, including aspirin, penicillin, antibiotics...they can all be good at specific times, but a long exposure to them has its own harmful effects. Regardless of that, if we were living in perfect conditions, it is estimated that our genes are set for a lifespan of about 100-120 years on average. Anyway, this is more Opus's field than mine, so he might elaborate more on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: ugh, my head hurts The German New Testament in 1529 written by Martin Luther. but that is difficult in itself. sentence structures are different and there are so many archiac words, that its hard to understand most of it unless u study the grammar. this is why the NIV version is so popular. i prefer the Amplified Version even better because its in my understanding of english. i dont even have to look twice at a passage.

I was thinking about that version myself. As long as 1 John 5:7 is the same in the Luther version as the King James:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This indeed would be an authentic text.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, yeah, but I've already answered most of it. Look, it takes you 5 minutes to copy-paste such an article and it takes me 2 hours to think about it and to disprove the major nonsenses. That's why I'm not going that much in depth. As I've said, if any of my points is unclear, I'll be glad to go further in depth, but I really don't have the time to write 15 page long essays explaining every single misconception in detail that the article contains.

Agreed. Very little time today to go over it in detail. And besides, what I did cover in the article previously (without my personal opinion on the matter) was pretty much the only area I'm a bit comfortable with. The area of geology and geophysics I'll have to leave for someone else.

quote:

Yes, it has been observed. Check out that worm breeding research I quoted from Opus from one of previous discussions on the topic. And eh, yes, the article does not base its research on the bible, but on many incorrect premises. I've mentioned the major fallacies earlier, and as I've said, if you want me to elaborate on specific points ok, but I'm not spending the whole day to explain every single incorrect point the article raises.

DrUg_Tit0 is certainly correct, it has been observed many times over in both the field and in the lab. If you want more citations, I'll be happy to supply them.

But I'm guessing that this is not exactly what you mean, that NO evolution has been observed. If this is what you mean (TranceVanDyk), then I'll have to say that you're in a very very very small minority of even the creationist camp. Most creationists I've ever engaged debates with, even YEC's concede that evolution does occur, but they often categorize it into two areas - "microevolution" and "macroevolution". The example like the polychaete worms would be one in which a YEC would concede "microevolution". But it's the so-called "macroevolution" step which creationists do not acknowledge. Without going into too much detail, evolutionists see absolutely no difference between the two. IOW, "macro" is merely further down the limbs of a bush than "micro". Think of it this way - when you leave your house and walk around with no destination in mind (remember that part), the so-called "micro" evolution would be equivalent to say leaving your porch, and the so-called "macro" evolution would be equivalent to being outside your neighbor's house down the street. It's merely a matter of distance in time via morphological differences as a consequence of reproductive barriers of some sort (sorry if that's confusing), and the key here is there's no endpoint in sight (i.e. no destination).

Acknowledging the fact of the so-called "micro" evolution isn't difficult even for the most ardent creationists, it's applying this fact to the theory of evolution, i.e. the best explanation for the vast morphological differences between all the various organisms on the planet over time, or as creationists call "macro" evolution, is what gets them a bit tripped up. The problem for the creationists, however, is the vast wealth of evidence that supports this explanation or theory. Keep in mind that it is merely the best explanation, and scientists would love nothing better than to come up with a new explanation to explain such events. Believe me, scientists LIVE for shit like this - finding a new theory that overturns old ones. You have to realize that evolutionists actually test their own theory every single day. It just keeps working for them, and the predictions that evolution offers them keep turning out to be correct.

Any other theories have been subject to testing and scrutiny, and NONE have held up to testable, verifiable, or observable scientific standards, and this includes any and ALL creationist postulations and claims. Can you possibly imagine just for one moment what the field of genetics would look like if they utilized creationist claims instead of evolutionary algorythms for their research? I shudder to think just how little progress we would actually make in such an area. Or how about geological studies? Would it surprise you to know that oil companies hire geologists that utilize evolutionary theory and the Old Earth to help them find oil? What would it be like if these geologists actually believed in a Young Earth and had to apply such creationist claims to find oil? They would not be in business for very long.

So keep in mind that scientists love nothing better than to be the discoverers of new theories that topple old ones. But this simply hasn't happened in the case of evolution. I assure you it is not some kind of conspiracy the fact that no public university teaches Intelligent Design or any Creationist claim in the science classrooms. It just simply isn't science, and they cannot utilize such claims in their work, period.

quote:

Like I said before, hyperbaric (increased pressure, hyperbolic means in a shape of a hyperbole -> ')(') oxygen treatment is useful for treating a range of deseases, especially those related to insufficient oxygenation of body cells (wow, guess that!), but prolonged exposure to increased amounts of oxygen, be it hyperbaric or not, produces toxic effects, probably because of too many free radicals but I'll ask Opus to confirm that. Same goes for any other medicine, including aspirin, penicillin, antibiotics...they can all be good at specific times, but a long exposure to them has its own harmful effects. Regardless of that, if we were living in perfect conditions, it is estimated that our genes are set for a lifespan of about 100-120 years on average. Anyway, this is more Opus's field than mine, so he might elaborate more on this one.

Crap, now I'm really running late. Well in short, he's absolutely correct. O2 is extremely toxic via free radicals that destroy cells at too high levels. But the entire article goes on the bogus premise that we're dealing with a young earth. As I mentioned previously, this would be breaking a number of laws of physics if it were true. The creationist claim on this is usually that the dating methodology is flawed somehow. I suggest you read this thread below for our explanaton on that. I believe it starts here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=5

higher amounts of oxygen with a proportionally higher atmospheric pressure is not toxic.

quote:

Another beneficial effect of the firmament would be greater air pressure with higher oxygen (Higher oxygen without the higher air pressure would be toxic). Secular evidence from trapped air bubbles in fossilized amber shows that before the Flood we had roughly twice the atmospheric pressure and 30-35% oxygen (compared to the current 21%) (Science, Vol. 239, p. 1406). However, new evidence has caused creationists to feel this is too high because oxygen poisoning would result and therefore a better estimate may be from 23 to 25%.

will never happen obv

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: higher amounts of oxygen with a proportionally higher atmospheric pressure is not toxic.

Yes it is. Why wouldn't it be? The cells would still absorb more oxygen than needed and too many free radicals would appear. Get it through your head that this amount of oxygen is exactly what's best for us. That's why when you climb to higher mountains you get more blood cells, because there's not enough oxygen. And when you come back down, you loose them because they supply you with too much oxygen, regardless of the fact that you've also increased the air pressure. Finally, the quote you posted totally contradicts itself because it admits that the very research they base their theories on showed results that the oxygen concentration in the past (about a 100 million years ago is my guess) was toxic for humans.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.