Creationist: Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark

Hello, rite I was brought up a catholic in Glasgow Scotland (the film braveheart ring a bell?)
And from an early age we were spoon fed religion which either board us to death or didnt make sense. And I like the facts about the world in which we live in.
But being told about dinosaurs on noahs ark give me a ****ing break.
Also (sorry for adding my two cents in here guys) butif the whole of the population of the planet originated from just two people would the species eventualy die out due to inbreeding. You here about it all the time dont you (disfigurement, low IQ ,deliverance!) But wait thats right they were Gods children so they were genetically safe oh no woops ! I've just added a piece of science to my rant just like Lisa simpson! http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/28405/The_Simpsons_Evolution.html

just a thought
 
CptStern said:
skip to 22:40 or so

"dinosaurs on a boat"


"the question is not "what made them [dinosaurs] go extinct?" The question is "Did they go extinct" Liberals are great at getting us to argue the wrong subject"

"the public school ciriculum is corrupt"


guy is a raving loon
Click to expand...

When I read that I just put my hand on my forehead, looked down, and sighed.
 
One question about evolution

Can anyone give me an observed example of increased complexity?
 
its crazy man too crazy but a friend of mine in work said something grand she said and I quote "I dont know about life or death but I'm sure if or when we die we'll find out what its all about"

just a thought
 
Zeus said:
When I read that I just put my hand on my forehead, looked down, and sighed.
Click to expand...


....but you watched the video before hand ...right?

teta_bonita: everything that mecha said, especially the macroevolution part. Also Kent Hovind isnt saying the world is 4000 years old, he's saying the flood happened 4000 years ago ...he says "according to the bible" the world is 6000 years old
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Define "complexity".
Click to expand...
An increase in usable genetic material?
Not entirely sure actually XD

It's just that to go from a single celled organism with extremely limited capabilities and no sense organs to a human being theres an obvious increase in complexity (both genetic and physical)

Since evolution is based on observable facts, I'd imagine that this increase in complexity must also be observable but when i think of all the observable instances of evolution they're simpley mutations in existing genes or different variations of the same thing. I was just wondering if there was an observed example of something becoming more complex.
(It's just one of the creationist arguments I haven't figured out how to argue against :/)
 
there was an article on the bbc website a few onths back showing fish evolving to some other type of fish to survive ! I will try and find it !
 
CptStern said:
....but you watched the video before hand ...right?
Click to expand...


No, and I haven't even watched it yet, that's the saddest part..
 
Dinosaurs on a boat?!? Sheesh, that's pretty dangerous. Did anyone see Jurassic Park II? Holy shit.
 
Captain M4d said:
Dinosaurs on a boat?!? Sheesh, that's pretty dangerous. Did anyone see Jurassic Park II? Holy shit.
Click to expand...
It's okay becuase before the flood all dinosaurs were herbivores ;)
 
Gunner said:
These people are worst than mullahs.
Click to expand...
Assuming you're implying the terroristic ones, then no, and it's horrible to even say that.

When they start strapping bombs to their chest for Jesus and blowing up cafe's on a regular basis and it becomes accepted and ENCOURAGED behavoir, then you can say that.

CptStern said:
nah you're lying right? ...you cant possibly be serious can you?
Click to expand...
JEBUS.
 
just to add another point, albeit in very simplistic terms(eg. high school biology) the 2 animal theory is ridiculous because everybody knows that genetic bottlenecks are a massive threat to animal species and tends to **** them over incredibly efficiently. evidenced by the cheetah.
 
Bull Goose Loony said:
just to add another point, albeit in very simplistic terms(eg. high school biology) the 2 animal theory is ridiculous because everybody knows that genetic bottlenecks are a massive threat to animal species and tends to **** them over incredibly efficiently. evidenced by the cheetah.
Click to expand...
The first creatures were created by god to be perfect and thus didn't have the genetic flaws that modern animals have (That arrised via microevolution)
So breading among small populations didn't have the negative consequences
 
It's okay becuase before the flood all dinosaurs were herbivores
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the boat is made of wood. :O

Anywho, complexity is another of those "kind" terms. Without a clear definition, it can mean anything you want it to.
Science needs more specificity.

In general, you could look at polyploidy although i'm not sure if that's what you're looking for.

Also, genetically "perfect" species can't undergo any form of evolution.
Evolution relies on genetic mutation.
Luckily, there is no such thing as genetically "perfect".
It's another too-vague term.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Also, genetically "perfect" species can't undergo any form of evolution.
Evolution relies on genetic mutation.
Luckily, there is no such thing as genetically "perfect".
It's another too-vague term.
Click to expand...
All it means is that they didn't have the genetic disorders that would go on to plague small breading populations :/ Doesn't really seem that vague
Mechagodzilla said:
Anywho, complexity is another of those "kind" terms. Without a clear definition, it can mean anything you want it to.
Science needs more specificity.
Click to expand...
It seems pretty clear to me :/
Oh well
 
So genetically perfect means "without genetic diseases"?

Lots of creatures do not have genetic diseases.
Which genetic diseases?
 
Mechagodzilla said:
So genetically perfect means "without genetic diseases"?

Lots of creatures do not have genetic diseases.
Which genetic diseases?
Click to expand...
Um.. i just used genetically perfect to get a point across...
I figured my meaning would be easily inferred
I didn't realize my words were going to be analyzed to death..
*white flag*
 
Ikerous said:
Um.. i just used genetically perfect to get a point across...
I figured my meaning would be easily inferred
I didn't realize my words were going to be analyzed to death..
*white flag*
Click to expand...

its impossible for something to be genetically perfect, since genes themselves are assortments of mutations. If they were genetically perfect, they wouldn't need sexual reproduction in the first place, since their genes would survive anything nature threw at them, and they would simply clone themselves. The whole point of sexual reproduction is to get genes from multiple creatures and mix them up in hopes of nullifying harmful mutations. The pure act of generating an entire species from two creatures would not go very far, since every mutation picked up would be magnified greatley within each generation.

needless to say, after thousands of generations of inbreeding, a species would be very different from the first ones "created" (if it survived)

this is why its more logical to assume that various like animals would appear independantly of one another, and then breed together to produce new offspring, and then successive cross-breeding would eventually result in a new species (eg. early homo sapien, erectus and neanderthalis crossbreeding to produce genetically modern humans)
 
Uh... what are we arguing over now?
 
i think the much more obvious point here is that god is supposed to be perfect, you say he created "perfect" creatures, yet he obviously ****ed up big time, because if they were perfect they wouldnt degenerate into the genetically flawed things they are today.
 
theotherguy said:
its impossible for something to be genetically perfect, since genes themselves are assortments of mutations. If they were genetically perfect, they wouldn't need sexual reproduction in the first place, since their genes would survive anything nature threw at them, and they would simply clone themselves. The whole point of sexual reproduction is to get genes from multiple creatures and mix them up in hopes of nullifying harmful mutations. The pure act of generating an entire species from two creatures would not go very far, since every mutation picked up would be magnified greatley within each generation.
Click to expand...
Thats only true if you start with the assumption that evolution is true :/
The point of these conversations is to generally start at mutually accepted grounds and work from there

Their view is simply that god created these creatures without the genetic impurities associated with the problems of inbreading. Which would make sense because it would be stupid to create them with those genetic flaws.

And clearly god would know that these harmful genetic mutations would spring up eventually with microevolution, hence the need for sexual reproduction, as you explained.
 
well simply talking about mutations occuring over time is admitting that evolution is true. If god wanted the creatues to be perfect and not acquire harmful mutations, he would have made genes immutable and every creature the same.

personally I think its absolutley rediculous to assume all creatures were created at the same time at the same place with perfect genomes and then were wiped out in a massive extinction and then repopulated the earth after a measly 4-5 thousand years. It took over 4.5 million years for humanity to even spread around the world, and they had a population in the hundreds of thousands when beginning their expansion. Please, 14 people and two animals of every "kind"? It's utterly rediculous.

Creationists like the man in this video are like the catholic-sponsored astronomers in galielo's time, who constantly adjusted and added loopholes into astronomical theory so it would fit the bible's view of an unchanging and unmoving world in the center of the universe. "Well they must have been genetically perfect" is completley avoiding the problem and adding needless complications. When the facts don't line up with the explaination, its time to get a new one.
 
theotherguy said:
well simply talking about mutations occuring over time is admitting that evolution is true. If god wanted the creatues to be perfect and not acquire harmful mutations, he would have made genes immutable and every creature the same.
Click to expand...
The ability to adapt and mutate is essential for survival though
And creationists have no problem with microevolution
 
It's a moot point anyways:

All the "genetically perfect" animals were flooded to death, right?

And only two of each survived - but only after millions of generations of mutation.

So it doesn't matter if they were "created perfect" when the kids on the ark were inbred genetic rejects.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
It's a moot point anyways:

All the "genetically perfect" animals were flooded to death, right?

And only two of each survived - but only after millions of generations of mutation.

So it doesn't matter if they were "created perfect" when the kids on the ark were inbred genetic rejects.
Click to expand...
Actually, adam would've lived long enough to know Noah's father
So there really werent that many generations between the first generation to the ones on the ark
(considering the increased life span before the flood)
So their genes were still fairly free of mutations

Edit: LOL XD Why am i argueing this? The idea is insane. I agree.
*Is completely athiest*
 
"Fairly"?

And if you follow you timeline there, the earth is only 6000 (or less) years old, which isn't physically possible.
 
Ikerous said:
One question about evolution

Can anyone give me an observed example of increased complexity?
Click to expand...

Evolution takes thousands of years, the world is a lot older then 6000 years
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Assuming you're implying the terroristic ones, then no, and it's horrible to even say that.

When they start strapping bombs to their chest for Jesus and blowing up cafe's on a regular basis and it becomes accepted and ENCOURAGED behavoir, then you can say that.


JEBUS.
Click to expand...

It's not like that, they're the religious zealots who extrapolate and bend logic to claim that God is the source of everything, just like this guy who says God created TV, the radio and telephone. Mullahs don't go around blowing themselves up, they tell other people to do that for them.
 
:O

omg, at first I thought the guy sitting next to him was laughing out of the sheer rediculousness of the situation ..but no he agrees with him

holy**** do people that stupid truely exist? how havent they accidentily killed/maimed themselves yet?
 
I wish creationists would just give it a rest. Their claims contradict all the well known facts about this planet and history ( Earth is 6000 years old:rolleyes: ). If they really think that then they should explain to how is it we can see with our telescopes stars that are more than a million light year away. If the Earth and the Universe were created 6000 years ago as they say, then we wouldn't be able to see those stars.

And of course my favorite one: dinosaurs and humans coexisted:LOL: . If we did coexist with dinosaurs then how come there are no human remains from the same date as the fossils and dinosaur skeletons?

Like others said in this thread simply stating that god did it is the simple way out, personally I choose science. Creationists take a hike already.
 
PvtRyan said:
I think Creationism is right. I mean, how can you POSSIBLY argue against this:

http://videosift.com/story.php?id=1999#leavecomment

Air tight argumentation. IT FITS THE HAND PERFECTLY!
Click to expand...

Pwaahhaaha what a dolt. I LMFAO at the " fits perfectly into the mouth" part. Oh boy, with solid creationist arguments like that it's very hard to understand what retards still buy into this, but somehow there still are!! I loled, but it's not funny that guy was actually serious and I think the guy next to him was barley managing to keep a straight face.
 
Ikerous said:
I was just wondering if there was an observed example of something becoming more complex.
Click to expand...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm said:
This definition, however, also produces problems. In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a "polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids--but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other through polyploidy.
Click to expand...
I guess it isn't 'observed' though.
Thanks to Mech for the link :thumbs:

Edit: Does anyone else realise the extreme irony of Ikerous playing the Devil's Advocate on behalf of Christianity?
 
Why do scorpions fluoresce? Noone knows... science can't even answer it :(

If science can't answer that, I don't see how it can answer the creation of the universe. <chuckles>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

unozero
'Hello mum, this is going to be hard for you to read ...'
3 4 5
Replies
164
Views
8K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Back
Top