Darwin's Finches Demonstrate Evolution

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

And taking from that article about the idiotic museum: “Americans just aren’t gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish,” he said.

I say: It isn't even that far fetched given the time periods we are dealing with... the earliest vertebrates were about 400 million years ago. We've been around (as homo sapiens sapiens) for about 130,000 years or so. So to go from a fish to a person took... oh... pretty much 400 million years.

Given that this kind of microevolution took place in finches over the course of 20 years, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if people evolved from fish over the course of 400 million years.

I read that quote as well and thought the same thing. We could not evolve over hundreds of millions of years....... BUT the earth was around for billions of years and God decided to create man only a little while ago.

Yea and Americans are not guliable at all........

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by CalgaryCowboy

Even most religious scholars agree the old testament is a collection of stories and fables inspired by God. I am a person of faith and don't get why one theory is pited against the other. God could well of created everything through a use of the big bang and evolution. One is a matter of faith the other is fact.

See, this I have no problem with. This belief, while not mine, makes the good sense to stay well within the realm of possibility.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CalgaryCowboy

Even most religious scholars agree the old testament is a collection of stories and fables inspired by God. I am a person of faith and don't get why one theory is pited against the other. God could well of created everything through a use of the big bang and evolution. One is a matter of faith the other is fact.

The problem is that some groups, (mostly evangalist protestant groups) take the Bible literally. Therefore, they believe the Earth is just a few thousand years old, and they ignore science completely.

While these groups are small and only represent a minority of Christians, it just so happens that they are politically powerful in some regions of the most powerful country of the world. This gives their views more attention than they deserve.

[photon]

Exactly.. people don't say God directed the ball to fall to the ground when you dropped it, gravity did it. Same with evolution.

Now the point at which people say God's responsible seems to have to change from time to time (God created the earth and life, but we know that both are far older than 6500 years so now God created the universe via the Big Bang. But what if we discover how the universe came about and that there are multiple universes, then God created the multiverse, etc etc).

Still, faith and science shouldn't have to be at odds. The problem comes in when people say the Bible is the unchanged infallable word of God and should be take 100% literally (Young Earth creationists). To that view the earth being 6500 years old is a "fact" so everything else has to jump through hoops to come in line.

EDIT: Too slow; what FA said.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The same. Thats why it was such a big deal to the doctor to get to visit them, he was a naturalist.

Ah.

Very interesting me thinks. Of course I never thought of the movie as having ANY reference to Darwin, but it is a valid comparison.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

See, this I have no problem with. This belief, while not mine, makes the good sense to stay well within the realm of possibility.

You'll find that most moderate religious people will believe the exact same thing.

Creation is based largely around faith, therefore it can't be thrown into the eyes of science and expected to provide valid results.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

###. And cue the people who will pretend that a "debate" still exists on this issue in 5...4....3....2..

you mean no....poooof a finch with a smaller beak!

It doesn't really happen this way!? now I have to re-evaluate everything I thought so far

[flamingchina]

The vast majority of creationists have no problem with microevolution (which this would be classified as), it's the macroevolution they have an issue with. (a fish turning into a dog)

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by flamingchina

The vast majority of creationists have no problem with microevolution (which this would be classified as), it's the macroevolution they have an issue with. (a fish turning into a dog)

I understand that but I guess that is just a lack of perspective. It's not like it is a fish one day and a dog the next. We are talking of millions upon millions upon millions of years.

You think about it... Civilization hasn't really been around in much of a meaningful way any longer than 10,000 years. Our lifespan, on the optimistic side, is about 100 years. Now... the time it took for a "fish" to evolve into a human is about 400,000,000 years.

I guess some people just don't understand that if you put a whole bunch of microevolutions together you don't just get a finch turning into a different finch... you could have a finch turn into something else altogether.

[photon]

Yes, the terms microevolution and macroevolution are often used to confuse the issue.

What is macroevolution? Changes at the species level and above? Because that's been observed. As well as transitional fossils showing "macroevolution". And if there were a barrier to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution, that barrier would have been observed.

EDIT: Rather there hasn't been a barrier observed yet. I guess that could be a "prediction" of creation theory.. one that hasn't been observed yet.

[RougeUnderoos]

I was looking through some creationist stuff a while back and I came across someone explaining how Noah could look after all them birds.

If Noah took just two of each species (he didn't) that's something like 50 thousand birds. That's a pretty big task, especially when you have to feed the brontosaurus and the silverback. The explanation offered was that back in those days, birds were different, and since then they have changed a lot, and there are more kinds, therefore evolution is a myth.

It also explained that it would be easy to fit all those animals in a hand-made wooden boat, because it was the size of a 747.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The explanation offered was that back in those days, birds were different, and since then they have changed a lot, and there are more kinds, therefore evolution is a myth.

Gee whiz, I wonder how they changed....

[icarus]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If Noah took just two of each species (he didn't) that's something like 50 thousand birds. That's a pretty big task, especially when you have to feed the brontosaurus and the silverback. The explanation offered was that back in those days, birds were different, and since then they have changed a lot, and there are more kinds, therefore evolution is a myth.

The tougher question is where were all the marine animals. There are countless freshwater and saltwater animals, and they couldn't both be swimming around in the ocean at once, could they?

[photon]

One creationist idea is Noah took "kinds" of animals. So one kind of dog, one kind of bird, one kind of elephant, horse etc.. (Whatever "kind" means anyway, what kind is a platapus, or kowala, or raccoon, etc). And after the flood the animals diversified and evolved into the ones we see today. Still doesn't match what's observed though.

It doesn't matter, there's very little evidence for a global flood. At the very least, where did the water go?

They had the guy from the Creation Museum on CHQR tonight. The interviewer was an evolutionist but basically lobbed softballs at him to hit out of the park. And the callers were all on the guy's side too. I hate radio some times.

[Nehkara]

Creationism has no basis in fact and is based purely in faith. It should stay that way, and that is why it has no place in schools.

It is unlikely that a global flood would happen. The only real way to flood much is to melt all the ice but that doesn't really happen. If "global warming" goes too far then we get an ice age and everything freezes again.

[Cheese]

Excellent link on the issues with Noah....

Talk origins Problems with a global flood

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?


Lets also not forget that Noah was over 600 years old at the time he built the Ark.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Excellent link on the issues with Noah....

Talk origins Problems with a global flood

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?


Lets also not forget that Noah was over 600 years old at the time he built the Ark.

Are you saying that a century ago, Naval fleets weren't made out of wood?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are you saying that a century ago, Naval fleets weren't made out of wood?

For the sake of NOT starting an argument with you...perhaps you should re-read what I posted. I never suggested anywhere that wooden ships werent used last century.

I DID copy this FROM the article...

The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long.



Common lengths for Galleons are approx 200ft long. Not sure what argument you want to start.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'm not trying to start an arguement either Cheese, but just because something is the biggest today doesn't mean it's the biggest ever.
I'm pretty sure Egypt built pyramids bigger than any pyramid we're building today.
Anyway, on that note, behold the : Thomas W. Lawson
http://www.schoonerman.com/tw_lawsn.shtml

395 ft long.
And there are supposedly writings from the Ming Dynasty about all wood treasure barges that were over 400ft long and 150 feet wide, certainly not conclusive, but it brings up an interesting point.
Does any of this prove that Noah's Ark did, or even COULD have existed? Hell no, in fact, I don't believe it happened either, I just like pointing out when you use irrelevant information that doesn't really prove your point. I'm fun that way.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm not trying to start an arguement either Cheese, but just because something is the biggest today doesn't mean it's the biggest ever.
I'm pretty sure Egypt built pyramids bigger than any pyramid we're building today.
Anyway, on that note, behold the : Thomas W. Lawson
http://www.schoonerman.com/tw_lawsn.shtml

395 ft long.
And there are supposedly writings from the Ming Dynasty about all wood treasure barges that were over 400ft long and 150 feet wide, certainly not conclusive, but it brings up an interesting point.
Does any of this prove that Noah's Ark did, or even COULD have existed? Hell no, in fact, I don't believe it happened either, I just like pointing out when you use irrelevant information that doesn't really prove your point. I'm fun that way.

I didnt post that link or thread to suggest it couldnt be done...I posted it to show what it "might or would" take. Click on the link and read the article. Its an excellent read that uses justifications from BOTH sides to reach its conclusions...IF it makes them. From that point anyone can decide what they want to believe.
I never suggested in my post that I espoused one version over the other or suggested that one side was right or worng. Take it for what its worth.
I did comment that a 600 year old Noah might be stretching things a bit. This also doesnt take into consideration the idea that Noah and his family had to repopulate the human race after they reached dry land. Are we all the Ba$tard offspring of an incestuous family? Why was an ALL LOVING God so angry he had to murder everything he created? If he was ALL KNOWING then wouldnt he have known in advance what he created and what would happen?
Personally I would have hated to be Noahs son shovelling all the Elephant dung on a daily basis from the Ark.