Do you believe in macroevolution?

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Does macroevolution occur?

  • Yes

    Votes: 94 82.5%
  • No

    Votes: 18 15.8%
  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • Total voters
    114
Status
Not open for further replies.
Come on Just_Plain_Nuts put it on the table how old do you "believe" the earth is ?

I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change.

Im open to change.. as long as it is supported by evidence real evidence.

I will admit i tend not to accept information from a book written by illiterate goat herders over centuries of accumulated Scientific discovery. Every time i go to a doctor and accept modern western medicine i make this distinction between trust in Science and trust in BS.
 
“There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa. 40:22)
the hebrew word for circle in the original text meant spherical
The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very true. The interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides.

^^Grabbed that from the great internet because it is relevant. Can't say I'm too good with my Hebrew.
 
I'm glad this has been pointed out. The bible has been mistranslated so many times which has lead to so many arguments and Christians believing in their one bible leading them to pagan values etc, jut like whats been pointed out :) we can thank the introduction of the Old English language for all that confusion and hate :) anything before the king James is more accurate to the original writings. Simple mistranslated words such as 'era,' and 'eternity,' and 'hell,' has lead modern Christians to be, well, what people hate about modern Christians I guess :) anyway, continue haha
That's why I don't quote Biblical contradictions and/or inconsistencies. The risk that the English language translation is too dissimilar to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is itself too great. Just because the English version is contradictory does not mean the original is too. Translators make mistakes, plus not every ancient Hebrew word has an analogue in modern English. And I'm not about to start learning Hebrew.
 
That's why I don't quote Biblical contradictions and/or inconsistencies. The risk that the English language translation is too dissimilar to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic is itself too great. Just because the English version is contradictory does not mean the original is too. Translators make mistakes, plus not every ancient Hebrew word has an analogue in modern English. And I'm not about to start learning Hebrew.

Yes I agree. I can't say I'm too interested in learning Hebrew too. Might just leave that one to the experts :)
 
There are far too many people against me on this with far too many comments to counter in the short spaces of time that I have so I will have to respectfully bow and step back as much as I enjoy these debates. I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change. I love you all, but I have to get back to my other more meaningful endeavours, goodbye.

Please do keep contributing to this thread mate. Your input is valued :)

and yes we are all very simple folk here in creation land, come and have some lemonade I squeezed it fresh chucks....hey mahhh get off the damn roof.......haha

Rofl.
 
Those are symbolic phrases... "From all corners of the globe" is still being used... geeeees
I just disagree with them claiming they can interpret which parts are meant to be literal and what's meant to be a metaphor. After all, God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?
 
If we are saying those dang creationists should not write papers and evaluate evidence outside their speciality, maybe we can lay off the statements about translation theory and ancient languages?

There have been some absolutely ludicrous statements made on these subjects in this thread, which detracts from the issue of evolution and some good points that are made on that point.
 
Ok... I want to do a little on probability - I could be wasting my time here - as creationists will be creationists, so I am preaching already to the converted. But, if just one creationist reads this, I can link them to where I got my sources:

Source 1: Amount of carbon on earth (in total, by mass) is 0.003% of Earth's total mass - Reasons To Believe : Planet Formation: Problems with Water, Carbon, and Air (just to prove I am not anti creationists, I took this figure direct from Dr Hugh Ross, who, seems to be a happy creationist. Here's a Dr Hugh Ross profile for you creationists so you know I am not lying. Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross

Source 2: Total mass of Earth 5.9736 x 10^24 kg (Earth Fact Sheet ) (I have no reason to disbelieve NASA).

Therefore the total mass of Carbon on Earth is 0.003% * 5.9736 x 10^24 kg = 179,208,000,000,000,000,000 kg of carbon (that is 1.79 x 10^20 kg).

That's quite a lot! (Earth is really heavy... Wonder what Jupiter would be like?)

Before you go blowing me up and saying I have way too much time on my hands - how are you spending your Sunday? It's raining here (not flooding like the Sunshine Coast), my GF is back in Australia till April, my dog is asleep and I am trying to work out how much carbon there is in the world to see what the probability of 1 atom of C-14 spontaneously decaying to N-14.

My science might not be perfect, because I've only had a couple of hours to find this out. If I had a lifetime I'd probably still come up with something similar.

Ok.... Back to the facts!

Of all carbon on earth, only 1 part per trillion is a C-14 atom! Ok... So that is 0.000,000,000,1% C-14 in the world....

So what is the mass of C-14 on Earth?

179,208,000 (one hundred and seventy nine million, two hundred and eight thousand) kg of C-14 on Earth (1.79 x 10^8 kg).

So how many individual C-14 atoms are there?

The atomic mass of C-14 is close enough to 14g per mole (1 mole of a substance = 6.022 x 10^23 atoms).

(phew, this is fun so far...)

So there is...
179,208,000 kg of C-14 on Earth (give or take a few)

We need this in grams (so multiply kg by 1,000)

179,208,000,000 g of C-14 on Earth (or thereabouts)

There is 14g per mole (approx - again, I rounded down not up because these numbers are going to get ridiculous soon and I don't need RSI (or what ever the name of it is this year) for this week of work).

so how many moles in 179,208,000,000 g of C-14?

There are 12,800,571,428 (12 billion 800 million 571 thousand 428 moles of C-14)

1 mole of C-14 contains 6.022 x 10^23 atoms....

7.709 x 10^33 atoms!!!

Yep... That's my calculation... (wow, that's a LOT of C-14 at any one stage).

(I'm now annoyed that after all my calculations I couldn't get x 10^50) but I will still go on....

(here goes)

In 5730 years half of that bulk lot of C-14 would have radioactively decayed into its daughter nucleus - N-14.

So 1 in 7.709 x 10^33 C-14 atoms will spontaneously decay... At some stage... Maybe it could be one of the half that will do it in the next 5730 years, or it could be in the next half after that... Or the next half after that!

Now think of it - C-14 isn't limited to Earth - so if we look at universal C-14 that number all of a sudden becomes MUCH MUCH larger! Well over 10^50 - where physics apparently suggests the probability of that nucleus decaying to N-14 is non existent - but it will happen!!! So it does happen! So where a physicist has said the probability is too low... Maybe I'd like to see that in an everyday reaction such as radioactive decay!

Just as a side - for those that can't comprehend how large these numbers are... If I had 7.8 x 10^33 jelly beans - how far would that stretch?

Let's make jelly beans square to start with - and we'll just look at area (not volume). So a jelly bean (for arguments sake) is 1cm x 2cm.

So if I laid them say.... 25m wide (so we could make a jelly bean highway) there would be 2,500cm wide (using the narrow end of the jelly bean) we'd need 2,500 jelly beans for one row.

So just 10 rows of jelly beans (spanning a total of 20cm) would need 25,000 jelly beans.

so 10 = 25,000 JBs

100 = 250,000 JBs (just multiplying by 10) (now we've only gone 2 metres in our 25m wide jelly bean highway and we've already used 250,000 jelly beans. Haven't got far yet).

If we had 1 million JBs we'd have travelled just 8 metres!!!

10 million JBs would take us 80 metres down this 25m wide jelly bean highway.

100 million JBs would take us 800 metres (you could have an Olympic running race on our 25m wide jelly bean highway).

1 billion JBs would take us 8km (not that far really)

100 billion JBs would now take us 800 km (from Cairns to Rockhampton approx).

1 trillion (just a thousand billion) would take us 8,000km (you could drive from Cairns to Perth to Sydney on this highway of jelly beans - you only need a trillion of them)

(get to the point damn it).

7.8 x 10^33 JBs would take you 61,668,032,914,285,714,285,714,285 km (I don't know how to translate that number but I think that would be 61,700 yotta metres).

This is a 25m wide highway of jelly beans!

Basically that would mean your highway (25m wide of jelly beans) would stretch from here, around the sun, around Pluto and back again.... And probably a little further too....

Needless to say I've now wasted enough time to go and cook me some lunch!

what was your point again
 
At the end of the day who gives a ----? live life and die when you are due. Find out answers when you die or decay into nothingness and do not, who cares for now?
Honestly debating this crap on a reptile forum?
 
If we are saying those dang creationists should not write papers and evaluate evidence outside their speciality, maybe we can lay off the statements about translation theory and ancient languages?

There have been some absolutely ludicrous statements made on these subjects in this thread, which detracts from the issue of evolution and some good points that are made on that point.
I agree (and hope I'm not one of the detractors?). Does anybody have any unusual views regarding evolution? Does anybody not believe in sexual selection? Or perhaps doesn't accept sexual selection as being part of natural selection, as Darwin didn't? Anybody not believe in kin selection? Anybody believe in group selection? Anything else you want to mention?
 
what was your point again

HAHA!!

Actually - it's just about large numbers - because it was thrown out there - that a probability of 1 x 10^50 is so unlikely we can discount it - so therefore the chance of a red blood cell being made is 1 x 10^650 (or something ludicrous like that).

But what that argument fully fails to account for (of course) is that if you're going to look at at the simplest form of life - the cell, and its intrinsic difficulties of forming.... The same could be said of atoms...

Even now we know that protons and neutrons are made up of other 'stuff' (eg quarks) I'm too tired to go into huge details of course, and we don't know how far it could possibly go (yet) - at one stage the smallest, indivisible thing was the atom - but we keep getting better and better at finding stuff out - and in the past 100 years since Rutherford's experiment, boy, have we found loads!!! So it's all new territory really.

So a seemingly in-complex thing as an atom, is actually significantly complex - probably also made by a designer... Designer atoms were all the rage 7 days ago....
 
At the end of the day who gives a ----? live life and die when you are due. Find out answers when you die or decay into nothingness and do not, who cares for now?
Honestly debating this crap on a reptile forum?
It's in the chitchat section, so the fact that this is a reptile forum is irrelevant. Your views have been duly noted, and thanks for contributing them :)
 
HAHA!!

Actually - it's just about large numbers - because it was thrown out there - that a probability of 1 x 10^50 is so unlikely we can discount it - so therefore the chance of a red blood cell being made is 1 x 10^650 (or something ludicrous like that).

But what that argument fully fails to account for (of course) is that if you're going to look at at the simplest form of life - the cell, and its intrinsic difficulties of forming.... The same could be said of atoms...

Even now we know that protons and neutrons are made up of other 'stuff' (eg quarks) I'm too tired to go into huge details of course, and we don't know how far it could possibly go (yet) - at one stage the smallest, indivisible thing was the atom - but we keep getting better and better at finding stuff out - and in the past 100 years since Rutherford's experiment, boy, have we found loads!!! So it's all new territory really.

So a seemingly in-complex thing as an atom, is actually significantly complex - probably also made by a designer... Designer atoms were all the rage 7 days ago....

Do not forget the pet dog and carbon.
 
At the end of the day who gives a ----? live life and die when you are due. Find out answers when you die or decay into nothingness and do not, who cares for now?
Honestly debating this crap on a reptile forum?

you care enough to put a post... chit chat section has done its job. Keyboard warriors unite
 
you care enough to put a post... chit chat section has done its job. Keyboard warriors unite
Unite baby unite. Can I unite with you red little Jim? Can we become keyboard warriors together?
 
And BAM! Get that one upya! Evolution disproved in one religious swoop!

Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.

Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.

Face palm.... That was his POINT!

Hey slimey, yes you do have far too much time on your hands. Your year 10 maths is quite fine however your logic is all wrong??? C-14 is an unstable isotope and WILL break down to N-14 in time , no one is disputing this. The more C14 you have the more will break down.....How you are equating the number of C-14 atoms in the universe to a probability eludes me???? That is like equating " I have $100" to "I have a 1 in a 100 chance of winning" Same value of integer yet completely unrelated and irrelevant????? But I do like the analogies of the sheer size of these numbers. Here's another
10^650 =
If you were to view these as coins that came flying past you on a conveyor belt at 100 per second, it would take you a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 31710 years to count it


There are far too many people against me on this with far too many comments to counter in the short spaces of time that I have so I will have to respectfully bow and step back as much as I enjoy these debates. I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change. I love you all, but I have to get back to my other more meaningful endeavours, goodbye.


and yes we are all very simple folk here in creation land, come and have some lemonade I squeezed it fresh chucks....hey mahhh get off the damn roof.......haha You obviously didnt understand it otherwise you would have picked up on the flaws of his argument ;)
 
HAHA!!

Actually - it's just about large numbers - because it was thrown out there - that a probability of 1 x 10^50 is so unlikely we can discount it - so therefore the chance of a red blood cell being made is 1 x 10^650 (or something ludicrous like that).

But what that argument fully fails to account for (of course) is that if you're going to look at at the simplest form of life - the cell, and its intrinsic difficulties of forming.... The same could be said of atoms...

Even now we know that protons and neutrons are made up of other 'stuff' (eg quarks) I'm too tired to go into huge details of course, and we don't know how far it could possibly go (yet) - at one stage the smallest, indivisible thing was the atom - but we keep getting better and better at finding stuff out - and in the past 100 years since Rutherford's experiment, boy, have we found loads!!! So it's all new territory really.

So a seemingly in-complex thing as an atom, is actually significantly complex - probably also made by a designer... Designer atoms were all the rage 7 days ago....


actually what makes me awe is the video clips out there of our solar system, and to the furtherest extent, and to how really insignificant we and our whole biology stuff is.
 
“There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa. 40:22)
the hebrew word for circle in the original text meant spherical
exactly, the four corners and ends of the earth are just terms...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top