Forums | MacLife

This is a terrible idea, because ResEdit is pretty much the only full ID supporter here, so this thread is almost like calling him out.

However, it will be easier now to find a good laugh when i'm looking for one

rolley49 wrote:

I've decided that the average person who believes in evolution does not noenough about the subject.  They think that evolution is solid fact backed up with solid evidence which is hardly the case.  And usually the people who say that people who belive in God etc. are idiots know less about the subject then the average person.

What a surprise, I think that of people who believe in ID. I think plenty of phd biologists know plenty about evolution, and believe it.

I see res has brought the subject over here. So res, what do you think of those links I gave you?

I'd like to take a minute to define the difference between creationism and intelligent design.
Intelligent Design is the science theory that evolution could not have happened, that life as we know it can not be result of random chance. Creationism is a religious based philosophy that happens to play nice with Intelligent Design, which is why a lot (though not all) intelligent design proponents are creationists.

Evolution mandates that the world is aged at least in the millions of years. It must be for life to have evolved from single celled bacteria (or bacteria-like) organisms into the complex life forms that are present today by the process of random mutation supplemented by natural selection.

Intelligent Design does not require that the earth be young, though a young earth does not conflict with ID the same way that it conflicts with evolution. Creationism generally does require a young earth, at least biblical creationism does (creationism of non judeo based religions may not).

One of the common points of attack on evolution by the ID scientists is the age of the earth, because if the earth is not millions of years old, then evolution must be cast out.

The age of the earth is determined by interpretation of the data. Much of the data that evolutionists intrerpret to indicate an old earth, the ID scientists interpret to be evidence of a catacylysmic event, generally a worldwide flood. Such a catacylsmic event can explain the numerous fossil layers, the many layers of dust in the ice layers that evolutionists say point towards an earth at least 100K years old, etc.

A global worldwide flood however does not explain how land loving life survived that flood, nor does it explain radio-isotope dating.

How life survived the flood is outside the realm of science, generally it involves supernatural intervention (usually the same intelligent designer that created life to begin with). It should be noted that almost every culture on the planet, if not every culture, has a global flood story.

Radio-Isotope dating - the ID does not consider it reliable unless you know the initial quantities AND know that it has not been tampered with. ID scientists have sent rocks of known age off for dating and gotten results that are not anywhere close to accurate, they have also sent rocks from "known age" layers off to labs as a blind test and gotten results all over the ballpark. They use this as indication that radio-isotope dating does not work, and note that those who use radio-isotope dating often have in their analysis a reason why they chose one method over the other, though often it is after the results have come in from the various methods - and thus is not really unbiased.

Intelligent Design is not against micro evolution. Darwins finches probably did originate from a small population that was all the same species. However, they are still finches, there have been no major changes the function of their systems (and in fact you can interbreed them just fine, they probably should be classified as different subspecies rather than different species - though speciation could occur and ID wouldn't crumble).

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp and scroll down to the section on Galápagos finches.

-=-
The science part - Intelligent Design - I think is worthy of being taught in the school classroom. Not necessarily in place of evolution, but as an alternative interpretation of the same data that evolutionists have. Who the intelligent designer is, that part is philosophy and does not belong in the public school. That needs to be left as an unanswered question of the theory - just as how the first life actually formed is an unanswered question of evolutionary theory.

Yes, as in, why not give your opinion of the contents? Same question I have always been asking that you have failed to address each time.

resedit wrote:

NAG wrote:

Yes, as in, why not give your opinion of the contents? Same question I have always been asking that you have failed to address each time.

What about the contents? Anything specific you are getting at?
If you have a point to make from the contents, please do so.

When I have a point to make, I generally post the link and make my point - rather than try to make people guess at what my point is. That is generally how discussions work. Make your point, and we can discuss it.

Res, there is no making a point with you for you will not listen. There is no listening to points from you for you say nothing. Really, look at every single response you have made to me. Smart-ass and either non-informative or wallowing in self-pitty. I don't care. What I do care about is knowing what you think. So please, let your guard down, for whatever reason you have it up, and just tell me what you think of the link. The purpose, the contents, why you don't agree. Heck, you may agree, I don't know because you never said.

You are your own god. You are your own demon.

I think this "one thread shall bind them" idea is not going to be helpful. Most of the threads on this particular topic start out with a specific issue, they simply degrade to the usual res vs everybody else back-and-forth volleys after a while. This is counterproductive. It removes the whole purpose of starting threads because a specific issue has come up somewhere. Might as well just create/evolve a whole new "Origins of the Earth" forum, then, so that there's at least a possibility of having different threads started based on specific points.

Will we soon have one permathread for all posts on government, gay issues, environment, etc.? What exactly does a permathread gain everybody?

The Tuatara

Google Images Tuatara

I'm sure most of you are familiar with it.
It actually is probably two species of a very ancient order of reptile that pre-dates dinosaurs (by old earth dating methodology) - as do crocodilians.

They only live in New Zealand, and now only on some of the smaller islands - not on the main islands (though they use to). They are in danger of extinction primarily due to introduction of foreign species, such as rats, that eat their eggs and their young.

They are a particularly fascinating reptile because they have something in their blood that acts like anti-freeze, allowing them to survive in very cold conditions. The eggs take an exceptionally long time for reptiles (er, any egg laying species) to hatch. They probably live to be 60 to 70 years old, though it is possible they may live to be 100 or more (like some turtle/tortoise species)

A very interesting find about Tuataras - male and female is not determined by the sperm, but rather, is influenced greatly by the temperature at which the eggs are incubated.

http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-tuatara.html wrote:

Like some other reptiles, such as alligators, the temperature of the nest where it incubated as an egg determines a tuatara’s gender. It has been found that a difference of just one degree centigrade can change the young in a clutch of eggs from all females to all males! Since higher temperatures create more males, there is some concern about the effects global warming could have on the survival of tuatara populations.

Now, since the ice layer records allegedly record periods of both global warming and global cooling over a hundred thousand years, and unlike crocodilians which can move with the weather - Tuataras are kind of restricted to the available land on the Islands of New Zealand where they currently live and have lived for a very long time, how is it that Tuataras have not gone extinct from populations that are entirely one sex or other hatching?

Have any biologists attempted to explain this?

Last edited by resedit (2005-08-20 4:58 am)

RatFink wrote:

resedit wrote:

Now, since the ice layer records allegedly record periods of both global warming and global cooling over a hundred thousand years, and unlike crocodilians which can move with the weather - Tuataras are kind of restricted to the available land on the Islands of New Zealand where they currently live and have lived for a very long time, how is it that Tuataras have not gone extinct from populations that are entirely one sex or other hatching?

Have any biologists attempted to explain this?

I really don't know what you want explained.  I would assume that like alligators they build nests for the eggs that keep them at a stable temperature. The ratio of sexes would be determined how the nest is made.

Females only mate every two to five years, and reproductive age starts at about 13 years - so there isn't much time for them to "adapt" to changing climate. They dig a hole and put their eggs in the hole and cover it up - the temperature of the soil is pretty stable, soil is a good insulator - but the temperature of the soil will vary with the temperature of the ocean (water is an excellent thermal capacitor and pretty much controls the temperature of islands)

The current global warming trend is a real concern, as they fear it will cause all males to hatch - an indication that no, temperature is not controlled by rotting vegetation like it is with crocodilians.

Any chance we can apply this every news item? We seem to get an entirely new thread every time a tiny developement occurs in a story.

I've come to the conclusion that creationists like to use words incorrectly.

resedit wrote:

Females only mate every two to five years, and reproductive age starts at about 13 years - so there isn't much time for them to "adapt" to changing climate.

Nature typically takes thousands of years to change even a few degrees which are plenty of time for adaptation. 

resedit wrote:

They dig a hole and put their eggs in the hole and cover it up - the temperature of the soil is pretty stable, soil is a good insulator - but the temperature of the soil will vary with the temperature of the ocean (water is an excellent thermal capacitor and pretty much controls the temperature of islands)

You are correct.  But ocean temperature is a heck of a lot more stable then air temperature in which most warming trends are measured.  Furthermore the choice of soil can also play a huge factor.  Compost for instance placed on top of a mound as, alligators do, can create lots of heat.

Last edited by RatFink (2005-08-20 4:25 pm)