Creationism

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Which proves my contention about the diversity of animals which CAN eat poisonous plants.

 

Are you really as dumb as you sound? How does what you said have anything to do with what I said?

Quote

...... where did this new DNA suddenly come from which made a poison their food?   

Totally clueless. Both animals that tolerate poison and the poisonous plants evolved together, at the same time and by small steps over a long period of time.

Quote

 

    41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

True, some mathematicians indicate that the entire time given by evolutionists for the diversity of animals to come about by the chance of beneficial selection is not  enough time to build one folded protein..... the chances are zero.

 

LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists, like Berlinsky. The rest are evident crackpots in the field of evolution.
     

Quote

 

    34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    you've certainly done your own research

Yes, I am an independent type of person.

 

That was sarcastic, Einstein.

Quote

That is why I do not lap up your gobbledegook.  I am also not prone to make gods out of men.  So mommy watchtower is not my only source of information.

No, you also lap up young-earth and ID-creationist nonsense. And you remain stuck in 40+ year old Watchtower teaching.
     

Quote

 

    35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as sma

Wild animals could be put in sanctuary areas.... but personally.... I believe animals can be tamed and animals can adapt to a new diet.

 

Not cats.

Quote

In the Brazilian jungle there are dogs that get no meat. They mostly eat plant material.

So? Their bodily systems can handle it -- those of cats can't. Look at modern pet foods.

Quote

Carrion eaters can be tamed but maybe they were created to keep the earth clean from dead animals. ...so we will soon see.

All well and good for carrion eaters, but most such critters are also active predators.

And then you have the many pure predators such snakes of all sorts, spiders, centipedes, scorpions, etc. etc. etc. Why do you think they have nerve and muscle toxins? Why are constrictor snakes obviously designed to kill by constriction?

Quote

 

    35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    like a T-Rex

These ate meat?

 

Of course. Huge serrated, steak-knife teeth? What do you think those were for?

Quite a number of prey animals have been found, such as Hadrosaurs, that had bites taken out of them, which healed, as shown by the growth of new bone. Do you think that God resurrected them?

Quote

According to evolutionists who do not know animals and sit behind desks -yes.

LOL! Most paleontologists and many other scientists do a great deal of fieldwork. You're too ignorant for words.

Quote

They found in several places that herds of these animals moved about - according to the tracks.

And?

Quote

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.

Duh.

But even that's wrong: ever hear of the packs of wild dogs of Africa? And packs of hyaenas?

Quote

They could have used their sharp teeth to tear fibrous plants.

Obvious herbivores have teeth very different from obvious carnivores. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

What is very significant is the eyes.  A predators eyes look straight ahead - to focus on the prey.  Look properly at herd animals - their eyes are on the sides of the head - like T-rex.

Wrong. "The eye position of Tyrannosaurus rex was similar to that of modern humans." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_vision )

Quote

And another problem: short arms....... cannot hold onto the prey to tear it apart or kill it.....

Apparently its huge jaws were sufficient to dispatch prey.

Quote

Mr alanF may laugh at me.....

You don't know the half of it.

Quote

but this should demonstrate this: ... I am an independent thinker. When I saw an article about large groups of T-rex tracks.....on more than one location.... I started noticing ..........  

What is the source for this?

T-Rexes are now known to have been somewhat social animals in that they cared for their young, but so far as I'm aware there is no evidence that they lived in groups larger than immediate family groups.

Quote

Lions and wolves are pack animals but they do not wade in water or the type of tracks one sees in large herds. Also - their eyes look forwards.

Your point?

Quote

Elephants do not eat meat and do wade slowly .... which I suspect the T-REX did..... and most probably near water to keep cool...... that is how the tracks were made.

You know this how?

Quote

Bees and ants are insects.

Noooo!!!

Quote

 

    14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in hist

Most other sciences and reproduce the experiment..... as evidence.

 

These are not historical sciences. As I already explained, historical and observational sciences like physics are different animals and by their nature, must follow different rules.

Quote

But evolution hides behind this impossibility....

Nonsense. Evolutionary Theory takes full advantage of historical science. I've already given you links on this, which you've duly ignored. Such as how historical science helped with the 2004 discovery of that most incredible intermediate fossil Tiktaalik ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik )
     

Quote

 

    14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated

I am not asking "how uranium got here" .... I am asking why it has not totally disappeared because it  does not need such a long time to become lead.....

I've told you TWICE already: U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. With the earth 4.55 billion years old, a bit less than half the original amount remains.

Why do you keep pretending that I have not already answered you? Are you completely senile?

Quote

so who keeps answering the wrong question?

You keep asking questions I've already answered several times.

[JW Insider]

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible. 

I tried to find some of that info and Google led me to

https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/modern-fossils-with-dinos/

One problem is that this showed up:

In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as Psittacosaurus amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature: 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.) To find such an advanced predatory mammal came as a surprise to these researchers. The evolutionists had long maintained that the only mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs were very small, like the supposed human ancestor that resembled a squirrel!

Nothing in this article could show that some of these other animals ONLY lived in "modern" times, which takes us right back to the problem of animals eating other animals.

[Arauna]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

a bit confused then. The

Yes you may be confused.... my answer was brief.  Animals were created in a certain way and remained that way.... ate what they were created to eat ... .but after the flood some of them turned to a different diet than before...... because plants, availability and climate changed......and their size could have become smaller too because the abundance and sources, that they were best suited for, changed (the entire earth is now under duress Rom 8)  

After the flood, some animals were then more suited to hunting since their previous source of food was no longer there.  They filled a niche. Eyes that look forward or can see in the dark are more suited to hunting.  They also use teeth that previously could have torn large plants.  After the flood not all animals would have made suitable predators. Jehovah allowed those who would not have survived after the flood to die. 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

But your earth's crust  is ancient - so the uranium should all be lead by now-  but is not.

Maybe this will help? Note the last line especially. But also note that HALF-LIFE doesn't mean that all of a substance is gone, does it? It means that HALF of it will be gone in that time.

https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/radioactive-decay/half-life/

The Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old. The half-life of uranium-238, the dominant isotope in natural uranium, is also 4.5 billion years. When the earth was young, there was twice as much uranium-238 as exists today. Moreover, there was more than 64 times as much uranium-235 at that time than exists today (the half-life of uranium-235 is 704 million years).

https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/radioactive-decay/

As uranium-238 decays into lead-206, it will sometimes decay into a different isotope of its parent uranium isotope and sometimes it will decay into an isotope of a totally different element than its parent. This series of alpha and beta decays is known as the uranium-238 decay series..

Uranium-238 Decay Series
Radioactive Isotope	Half Life	Type of Decay
Uranium-238	4.5 billion years	α
Thorium-234	24 days	β
Protactinium-234	1.2 minutes	β
Uranium-234	245,000 years	α
Thorium-230	75,000 years	α

 

 

[skipped a few]

Polonium-210	138 days	α
Lead-206	(stable)

Each radioactive isotope is the parent of the progeny isotope listed below it. Each progeny isotope has a much shorter half-life than uranium-238. This radioactive series will require a little over 6.5 billion years to complete.

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    23 minutes ago, Anna said:

    predators were created with eyes that look ahead so they could

Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

 

Oh, so some animals just decided to eat meat, rearranged their teeth and lots of other apparatus, redesigned their digestive systems, and installed new, predatory instincts.
Do you have the faintest idea how ludicrous your claims are?
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?

They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.

 

What "grave pits"? Provide source references. Your memory is crap.

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

I'm a bit confused then. The eyes of both predators and prey didn't being moving (evolving?) until after Adam's fall, 6,050 or more years ago??

 

That's what she's saying, although she's too stupid to know it.

Quote

 

    31 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.

I tried to find some of that info and Google led me to

https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/modern-fossils-with-dinos/

 

Note that this is another young-earth creationist website, and suffers from most of the usual problems: most of the sources are hopelessly out of date (1945, 1966), the arguments leave out important facts, etc. -- pretty much the same dishonesty as you find in Watchtower literature.

Quote

 

One problem is that this showed up:

In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as Psittacosaurus amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature: 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.) To find such an advanced predatory mammal came as a surprise to these researchers. The evolutionists had long maintained that the only mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs were very small, like the supposed human ancestor that resembled a squirrel!

 

Recent fossil discoveries have shown that there were a lot more types of mammals living before the dinosaurs died out. All were no bigger than a raccoon, and most were the size of a mouse. That appears to be true all the way back to when relatively modern mammals appeared toward the end of the Triassic Period, around 200-220 million years ago.

Quote

Nothing in this article could show that some of these other animals ONLY lived in "modern" times,

Right. But the article clearly tried to give the impression that fully modern mammals and birds lived with the dinosaurs.

Quote

which takes us right back to the problem of animals eating other animals.

Which goes back half a billion years.

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    a bit confused then. The

Yes you may be confused.... my answer was brief.

 

Less complimentary terms are warranted.

Quote

Animals were created in a certain way and remained that way.... ate what they were created to eat ... .but after the flood some of them turned to a different diet than before......

You know this how?

Quote

because plants, availability and climate changed......and their size could have become smaller too because the abundance and sources, that they were best suited for, changed (the entire earth is now under duress Rom 😎

Ah, 10,000x sped up evolution in action!

Quote

After the flood, some animals were then more suited to hunting since their previous source of food was no longer there.

Yes, they just magically decided to change themselves. LOL!

Quote

They filled a niche. Eyes that look forward or can see in the dark are more suited to hunting.  They also use teeth that previously could have torn large plants.

T-Rex teeth are not suitable for eating vegetation. There are plenty of examples of ancient animals whose teeth are clearly made for eating vegetation.

Quote

After the flood not all animals would have made suitable predators. Jehovah allowed those who would not have survived after the flood to die.  

According to Hezekiah chapter 23? Or what?

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists.

I didn’t know that.

Have you ceased counting on that account?

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, César Chávez said:

Who do you think started the evolution scheme if not from a self-made God?

Do you think that's a solution, though? Positing that Satan deposited these fossils to trick us would certainly explain some things, but it also seems like a stretch to me.

14 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

However, not knowing the strength of the oceans current in the flood that science can't prove or disprove, deposit of materials can be logically inferred throughout the world.

It's a bit like me claiming that I can lift 100 tons, and then sticking by that claim just because you can't prove that I can't. I already believe that evolutionists can't prove all their claims, but it would be nice if there were some evidence of this depositing that could not be explained better in other ways. For that matter, the fact that so many areas of the world still have UNdisturbed layers of sediment bothers me.

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Genesis 7:10 water arose from the ground as well as the heavens. What power did God use to force inward water out? Any material within that power could be deposited elsewhere. 2 Peter 3:5

OK. I have long believed this explains a goo part of the issues. The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things. I just have never made the time to study the evidence. I'm sure a worldwide flood would be expected to create a lot of shifting and catastrophic changes. We've even made claims (like Young Earth Creationists) that the pre-Flood atmosphere would have allowed less of certain types of dangerous radiation in, and that the post-Flood radiation would somehow have changed Carbon 14 dating accuracy. I don't think we ever figured out a scientific way this was possible though.

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

All calculations are man made. It would have to be acceptable if God receded the waters by force. Pressure with radio particles could yield different carbon dating.

Bingo!   Most of the evolution dates of rocks assume perfect conditions like in a lab.... in other words - no contamination. They also assume that rocks were formed without any of the daughter isotopes around- which affects the age dating of the rock.   They also assume "goldilocks conditions" on earth - which is impossible.

 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

The first thing, how did a microbe began from nothing? There has to be a starting point to

Mathematically it is impossible.  Billions upon billions of "beneficial" changes by chance just to build the orderly "  factories" within the cell. Separate DNA in the mitochondria..... and a membrane to hold it all in place so the contents does not dissipate.  Without a membrane the first cell would not exists because the chemical nano particles  will dissipate in the watery soup.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things.

Those massive birds (dinosaurs) could fly in the atmosphere we had here on earth before the flood.  Major changes were brought about by the flood - much greater than we can imagine.    But evolutionists do not except the event - so it is not in their "goldilocks" calculations.  Lab conditions are perfect but nature is not.  

Creationists point to events such as an extreme flooding event in America in 18th century where the sediment built up suddenly during the flood and it looks similar to that if the Grand Canyon.  Now that is evidence in real time!  But this evidence is not good enough for evolutionists..... they prefer  experiments in perfect lab conditions and fake dates.

Creationists also point to the incorrect dating of major recent events such as Vesuvius volcanic eruption.    Dates come back from labs which are billions of years - yet we know the date of these catastofic events as recent.   There are many many examples of this around.  It is the method of calculation and "faulty"  assumptions before the dates are calculated.  

So yes, if one listens to evolutionists - their postulations is a reality and they are "scientific".  But bring them contrary recent evidence from real time - modern times -  and you are a "moronic" creationist.  Does that sound like they are running after ego or the truth? 

 

[Arauna]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists.

Many are!  ......... especially if the understand the structure of the cell.   Have you ever asked yourself the question: why?   

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

some animals just decided to eat meat, rearranged their teet

As an evolutionist you disappoint me...... what about adaption to new diet like Darwins finches? ?  They use the same teeth, same eyes they used before but now go after a new diet because they can....

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

grave pits"? Provide source references

America itself has two great gullies that are hundreds of miles long - full of  dinosaur bones.  Probably pushed in there by the flood...... you will know about this if you read some creationist material.  As I said before...... it is what the evolutionists don't tell you and keep quiet about - that is really the important info. 

[Arauna]

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

10,000x sped up evolution in action!

No proof of goldilocks conditions on earth .... evolution can only happen in a lab.... there are natural disasters in real nature such as flooding etc.  Food sources disappear or change - remember Darwin?  His little birdies changed their diet.... and back again when the food source changed.  

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

teeth are not suitable for eating vegetation.

Not the plants we have today ..........  and don't even try and say - where is the evidence that different plants existed or that plants did not grow more lush before the flood.   There was much more water and the earth must have been like an ideal hothouse  why?  The dinosaurs which ate plants must have had an abundance (tons)  of plant food per day to feed those massive bodies. Usually large animals are plant eating such as elephants,  rhino,  hippo's...... and this us from my own  scientific "observation "  by looking at what is around me right now!  Lions, wolves are not as large as elephants.  So yes, T-rex could have used those teeth to eat fibrous plant material...... maybe even holding it with those little claws.  Now there is postulation for you but based on evidence around us today! 

 

[Arauna]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

bit like me claiming that I can lift 100 tons, and

Lift up a large bucket of water and see what it weighs..... and the power it can wield. Small little floods are devastating  An isolated tremor high on the Richter scale  could bring a tsunami to Japan that devastated much - crushing and mauling everything in it's way.  Now think of water on the entire earth - covering mountains and its weight.......pressing down and forming instant sediment layers. Carrying vast amounts of trees and animals as it moved, depositing them where there were obstacles (next to gullies while the animals were still intact)  and then moving on - later swaying to and fro.  (The mountains where I live now in Tbilisi look like they were formed by water swaying to and fro creating wave-like patterns. When water pulls back it creates more movement. Teutonic plates moved throughout this process - not inches but moved inches per second.  New mountains pushed up and new depths in the sea.   Volcanos erupted. It was violent not a peaceful little flood.  The calm after the flood must have been wonderful.   Since the same sedimentary layers are found all over the earth..... it is a glaring tell-tale sign of a catastrophe. The massive deposits if animals in gully graves that are hundreds of miles give proof of world-wide flood that was powerful (not local floods)

Some animals survived the flood such as saber tooth tiger, large sloth, etc because they have been found with human remains and other animals in bitchumen pits. They must have died out by other means.

Coal and oil is formed where there is no oxygen.  Heavy water , pressing down on buried animals and tons of vegetation and trees,  removed the oxygen. We find vast coal reserves and oil all over the earth.