DescentBB

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2012 10:14 am**

I think it's more accurate to say they are dieing off at almost as rapid a rate as they appeared. Call it what you want, but I see intent , purpose and order from the Big Bang until now. I find it hard to think random speciation when considering mass extinction events that kills off virtually all known land animals, just for them to come back even more diverse and complex than they were before. That would mean that every land animal left, however few, would have to have evolved yet again into every land animal we see now. That's a whole lot of speciation, over and over again.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2012 4:35 pm**

I'm stunned that I went away on two week-long fishing trips and this circular discourse is still unchanged.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2012 10:05 pm**

It's like this to me. I have a hard time believing in speciation, but then again, the bible says God made "everything after it's own kind" , so I'm not against the idea.

http://evogeneao.com/tree.html

The problem I have is the way it's presented. It would be more honest, when creating a evolutionary timeline, to factor in every mass extinction because that is always where the leap is made forward.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2012 7:30 pm**

I think you sort of have it backwards, Flip........what caused mass extinctions was some event or set of events(over close periods of time) that created intense selective pressure. Such pressure would not only cause the die-offs of unsuited species, but push to the top of the adaptation order more radical mutations and variations that would not have had enough advantage in normal times to be able to proliferate.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2012 8:16 pm**

Not trying to be an ass, but normally I will find at least a few sources of data and then use them to make a conclusion. How did you arrive at this?

I think you sort of have it backwards, Flip........what caused mass extinctions was some event or set of events(over close periods of time) that created intense selective pressure. Such pressure would not only cause the die-offs of unsuited species, but push to the top of the adaptation order more radical mutations and variations that would not have had enough advantage in normal times to be able to proliferate.

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2012 5:10 pm**

flip wrote:Not trying to be an ass, but normally I will find at least a few sources of data and then use them to make a conclusion. How did you arrive at this?

you're kidding, right? I mean, you ARE aware of voluminous data on stuff like meteorite strikes, volcanic activity, global temperature drops(result-Ice Age), etc, that are easily located and seemed(to me at least) so obvious as to not need individual references for any adult, correct?

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2012 9:38 pm**

Correct.

EDIT: So, instead of slow gradual change through mutation and natural selection, intense pressure caused what would seem to be immediate change on a geological scale?

EDIT: I kinda see it like this.
Bang......bang......bang........bang........bang......bang..........bang.........bang........

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2012 10:04 pm**

[youtube]p4l3UsOle6k[/youtube]

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2012 10:13 pm**

Sounds like a typical night in my hood.

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2012 10:16 pm**

Lol

That sucks.

Posted: **Sat May 26, 2012 6:11 pm**

Dr. Richard Leakey wrote:If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

Posted: **Sat May 26, 2012 6:49 pm**

Leaky was already going senile if he thought "man created" planet change.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2012 12:13 pm**

woodchip wrote:Leaky was already going senile if he thought "man created" planet change.

sadly, I once again have to urge you to read for simple comprehension. In the quote, on these pages, which you could read and re-read as much as you wished, the man stated that man "accelerated, if not caused, planetary change". Thus, he merely suggests the possibility that some planetary changes were caused by man directly, but that mostly we just affected the speed of certain processes. I will add that anyone who supposes that man has NOT been responsible for some measurable and significant changes to planet earth that impact ecosystems and individual species, is unaware of simple, obvious facts.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2012 10:49 pm**

callmeslick wrote:sadly, I once again have to urge you to read for simple comprehension.

welcome to hell.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2012 11:14 pm**

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 5:33 am**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:Leaky was already going senile if he thought "man created" planet change.

sadly, I once again have to urge you to read for simple comprehension. In the quote, on these pages, which you could read and re-read as much as you wished, the man stated that man "accelerated, if not caused, planetary change". Thus, he merely suggests the possibility that some planetary changes were caused by man directly, but that mostly we just affected the speed of certain processes. I will add that anyone who supposes that man has NOT been responsible for some measurable and significant changes to planet earth that impact ecosystems and individual species, is unaware of simple, obvious facts.

I suggest you stop listening to AlGore as he alone has put out so much hot air the earth has warmed 20 degs.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 1:00 pm**

Turning a blind eye can come back to haunt us. Even if Gore were to be proved spectacularly wrong, we shouldn't be denying that we're not a detrimental influence on the environment, and that we're slowly poisoning our one and only lifeboat, Earth, that our children, and their children, will have to live in. The environment is a big mass sink. Change happens slowly, and things are slow to recover, maybe even never, when it does change for the worse.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 1:45 pm**

I agree with everything but change happening slowly. Things throughout time continued as they were until some catastrophic events happened as a catalyst.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 9:40 pm**

Couldn't sleep and this popped in my head.

Hebrews 12:26-27
" At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[e] 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken —that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.."

Seems like there has been a whole lot of shaking go on

but the last one will be the big one.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Back then it was faith, now we know it's true.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 9:42 pm**

flip wrote:I agree with everything but change happening slowly. Things throughout time continued as they were until some catastrophic events happened as a catalyst.

Geologic time is slooooooooooow, for the most part. Outside influences like asteroid and comet impacts, or catastrophic land events like large, exploding volcanoes, can be very fast and certainly be a catalyst for rapid change. No system is stable. But puny little humans can still make relatively slow, albeit bad changes, like this one:

Radioactive Tuna

Go back to bed flip.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 9:53 pm**

I remember Duper posting when the Dinosaurs went extinct, that land masses made massive shifts in just months, accompanied by earthquakes, tsunami's and world-wide, at once volcanic activity.

That's pretty fast.

Same with the first extinction, the Great Oxygenation Event, The GOE was the point when these minerals became saturated and could not capture any more oxygen.

I am tired though so I won't continue this line of thought tonight, I was just pointing out how The Bible, a pre-scientific book, always gets the parameters right.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 10:11 pm**

That's what I said, large asteroids and volcanoes will cause fast changes. Usually though, geologic time itself encompasses millenia. Rocks don't fold and bend at a rapid pace. It takes heat and slow, enormous, steady pressure. Fast, it fractures, melts or gets pulverized.

The Bible has no concept of long geologic time because they didn't know about it back when it was written. Bedtime for me.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 10:22 pm**

Wow, that's a spectacular shot. Do you know where it was taken?

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2012 10:24 pm**

Heh, you just made my point and with enough pressure and heat you could instantly make diamonds. My point again being that even though they didn't have conclusive proof, the concepts are there and nothing contradicts what we conclusively know now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2012 5:04 am**

Yampi Sound on the Kimberley coast (Western Australia) near Koolan Island.
Specifically it could be Nares Point

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2012 5:57 pm**

roid's right, although it's not my picture. I borrowed it because it was a really good picture of folded rock. Should have given credit. It was late last night and getting into my bedtime.

flip wrote:Heh, you just made my point and with enough pressure and heat you could instantly make diamonds. My point again being that even though they didn't have conclusive proof, the concepts are there and nothing contradicts what we conclusively know now.

That rock was sedimentary in origin and used to be on the bottom of an ocean, for a long time too judging from the thickness of the strata, before it became solid rock. It was also initially permeated with water, which, in order to be turned into solid rock, required it being buried very, very deep under a lot of pressure for eons just to rid it of that water, which finally compressed it into thinner layers of solid bedrock. Then it was eventually heated, but not melted, to make it plastic, also altering the mineral structure before it was finally put under a tremendous slow pressure to cause those nice, pretty folds. That doesn't include the time it took to erode away the overburden on top of that rock to re-expose it to the human eye again. Eons of geologic time, just not possible in 6000 years.

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2012 6:42 pm**

Wow TC, who the heck said 6000 years? Your obviously not reading my posts with an open mind.

EDIT: On top of that, I can show 2 totally unrelated studies concerning our perceptions of how long it took to create this Earth. It takes a star to form first, then within 200 million years, there was already water on the Earth. That means in 200 million years, all the planets were formed, put in their respective orbits, and the earth already had a fully formed atmosphere and magnetosphere. That is quicktime. There is also a fully formed galaxy just 200 million years after re-ionization.

EDIT: The first extinction is described as being a change from Anaerobic to aerobic. Water needs free oxygen to form.

EDIT:Had to change my funky math

EDIT:I suspect that in that first 600 or so million years the universe was expanding as a molecular cloud, and then all stars started forming at the same time. That is debatable though

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2012 7:58 pm**

I wonder how many solar systems are contained in that one galaxy.

Posted: **Wed May 30, 2012 4:15 pm**

flip wrote:Wow TC, who the heck said 6000 years? Your obviously not reading my posts with an open mind.

These guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Not that you personally believe in their timeline.

Posted: **Wed May 30, 2012 4:42 pm**

Nope

. I believe in the math and data. I just don't like the way it is presented

Posted: **Wed May 30, 2012 8:54 pm**

flip wrote:Nope . I believe in the math and data. I just don't like the way it is presented

I should hope so. That Velociraptor ???? is looking at that human like it's about to be it's lunch, at least in the world according the the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

EDIT: I mean the proposed Ark Museum, not the Creation Museum.

Posted: **Wed May 30, 2012 11:23 pm**

Every time I think of that place, I weep.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2012 5:52 am**

Every time I think of that place, I weep

Me too =/. They obviously havn't done any real study and do a great deal more harm than good.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2012 9:50 am**

Yeah, and they got taxpayer dollars to help build it.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2012 11:44 am**

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, and they got taxpayer dollars to help build it.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to critique the AiG's museum. I'm not sure that "taxpayer dollars" is one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

The museum, which is said to have cost $27 million, is privately funded through donations to the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis and opened its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.[8][9]

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2012 2:16 pm**

Top Gun wrote:Every time I think of that place, I weep.

We have the Flintstones to thank for that.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:21 pm**

dissent wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, and they got taxpayer dollars to help build it.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to critique the AiG's museum. I'm not sure that "taxpayer dollars" is one of them.

Yes it is. All under the guise of "job creation".

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/02/1548 ... ooden.html

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:42 pm**

Interesting, but I thought you were saying that the taxpayer dollars were being spent on the Creation Museum; is that not where the picture came from? The article you linked was in reference the the Ark Encounter theme park. As I understand it, both are associated with AiG, but they are separate projects.

Furthermore, the article mentions tax incentives, not grants of taxpayer money. Isn't this similar to what other businesses get for bringing economic development to a given location?

Beshear said the law does not allow the state to discriminate against a for-profit business because of the subject matter. Not everyone supports NASCAR, the governor said, but that did not stop him from providing incentives to help Kentucky Speedway hold a Sprint Cup race next year.

If they want to press the YEC theme, then that will be a business decision that may limit their demographic and the amount of revenue they can draw as a theme park. If people want to pay good money to wander around a replica of Noah's ark and stay in the local hotels and eat in the local restaurants, then I don't see a major problem with that. It's a free country.

Posted: **Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:26 am**

The Ark Encounter is being brought to you by the same crazy Evangelical group that built the Creation Museum, so that picture is close enough (fixed it above). They want massive tax breaks for their proposed Ark Museum when other essential services are being cut for budget reasons. Their governor, Beshear, is calling for a 6.4 percent cut to education and a 2.2 percent cut to State Police in his 2012-2013 budget. Even he admitted his budget was "inadequate for the needs of our people." Apparently, he thinks the Ark Encounter is a more important way to spend those scarce tax dollars than on education and services.

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/18/2032 ... udget.html

I guess if Kentucky would rather spend their tax dollars on idiot infrastructure boondoggles instead of education and police services, fine by me. I don't have to live there.

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/28/2130 ... n-for.html

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/05/20/1745 ... roved.html

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20 ... heme-park-

Posted: **Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:51 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:The Ark Encounter is being brought to you by the same crazy Evangelical group that built the Creation Museum, so that picture is close enough (fixed it above).

I believe I noted that AiG was involved in both projects in my post.

They want massive tax breaks for their proposed Ark Museum when other essential services are being cut for budget reasons. . . . " Apparently, he thinks the Ark Encounter is a more important way to spend those scarce tax dollars than on education and services. . . . I guess if Kentucky would rather spend their tax dollars on idiot infrastructure boondoggles instead of education and police services, fine by me. I don't have to live there.

But according to your linked references, Kentucky is NOT spending money on the Ark Encounter. They are deferring tax revenue collection by offering tax incentives for the construction of the park. Tax incentives are offered to businesses like the theme park in the hope that related economic activity, such as sales and other taxes, will offset (or, they hope, exceed) the lost revenue from the original taxes. Governments take these kinds of bets all the time with business ventures - sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Even the tax rebate mentioned in one of the articles in contingent upon certain economic performance of the theme park. So both parties in the deal are betting on a win. Time will tell if it was a good bet.

DescentBB

Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...

Re: Dinosaurs didn't die because of an asteroid...