| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2005 08:10:25 PM · #626 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...several thousand feet of rain would seriously affect the salinity of the oceans and kill off most sea life (unless of course it rained salt water, which would kill off the freshwater fish- take your pick). |
Originally posted by RonB:
...for a time, the salinity of the oceans was greater toward the bottom and lesser toward the surface ( where it was also raining fresh water ). Fresh-water fishes swam near the surface, salt-water fishes lower down; each in accordance with its needs. |
Originally posted by RonB:
There is AIR at the SURFACE. That's where air breathing ocean animals go to BREATHE. The PRESSURE at the SURFACE of the ocean ( SEA LEVEL ) is only the pressure of the ATMOSPHERE. It is MUCH less than the pressure at greater DEPTHs. |
AH... so those saltwater mammals that couldn't tolerate fresh water would just swim down to where the water was still salty, but the pressure would kill them, and to breathe they swim back up to where the pressure is tolerable, but the lack of salt would kill them. Got it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:13:49 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by BigR:
Only one has proven itself time after time, no other can say this. The Bible tells future events and ALL have come true and ARE STILL comeing true. Read it and see for your self |
I am devastated to learn that I do not have free will after all... |
Why don't you have free will? You know what I just remembered I really don't care if evolution is right or creation is right all I know is I breathe in, I breathe out. LOL nuff sed, sorry, if I offended anyone.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 20:19:04. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:20:36 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For those that are willing to read and comprehend, I offer this:
The SURFACE of the ocean is UP. DEPTH in the ocean is DOWN. There is AIR at the SURFACE. That's where air breathing ocean animals go to BREATHE.
The PRESSURE at the SURFACE of the ocean ( SEA LEVEL ) is only the pressure of the ATMOSPHERE. It is MUCH less than the pressure at greater DEPTHs. |
I think that the problem is that for the salt water animals to subsist in the salt water layer, under the fresh water layer, they would have to live in a much deeper area where they would suffer the effects of increased pressure.
The whole argument is ridiculous in any case: the appearance and disappearance of so much water requires the suspension of belief in natural law that we might as well just accept that God made it work in suspension of all laws of nature. What is the point of an omnipotent God if he cannot bring and remove some water, or prolong people's lives, or make the animals just get on and love each other, create some food (and help with the cleaning rota)?
If there were some proof of a flood of literal biblical proportions, I would become a believer. There is plenty of evidence of London burning 2000 years ago in the substrata (a thin layer of ash), when Boudicea sacked the city. So surely a worldwide flood in the last 6k years would be otherwise easy to spot?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:27:17 PM · #629 |
Originally posted by jsas:
I believe we evolve I look in the mirror and see that. I don't believe I come from a monkey like milo does. |
Might your ancestors a thousand generations ago looked a little more like cavemen? Might their distant ancestors have looked a little more primitive? How far would you need to go?
No one is suggesting that this is a recent change, or even one that leapt from primitive ape to human. In fact, just the opposite: it must have happened over many many thousands of generations.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:37:41 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by RonB:
"Water vapor effect: Humid air is lighter (less dense) exerting less pressure than dry air at the same temperature. |
This effect has its limits (obviously, a bucket of water is heavier than a bucket of dry air). The problem is keeping so much water in the form of vapor.
For the earth's atmosphere, the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. For this flood, there would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed. The pressure at the earth's surface would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. Each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part air (far greater than the 23g per cubic meter you specified at 77 degrees). To keep an atmosphere that's nearly 100% water from condensing, the temperature would have to be raised well beyond its normal boiling point. Noah would be cooked. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:41:10 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by jsas:
I believe we evolve I look in the mirror and see that. I don't believe I come from a monkey like milo does. |
Might your ancestors a thousand generations ago looked a little more like cavemen? Might their distant ancestors have looked a little more primitive? How far would you need to go?
No one is suggesting that this is a recent change, or even one that leapt from primitive ape to human. In fact, just the opposite: it must have happened over many many thousands of generations. |
Really don't care beagle I breathe in, I breathe out I was just playin with ya'
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:44:11 PM · #632 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
If there were some proof of a flood of literal biblical proportions, I would become a believer. There is plenty of evidence of London burning 2000 years ago in the substrata (a thin layer of ash), when Boudicea sacked the city. So surely a worldwide flood in the last 6k years would be otherwise easy to spot? |
Not truly a worldwide event (though it might have comprised the "known world" at the time), but there's some evidence for a catastophic flood occurring near the Bosporus in Asia Minor, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, where it broke through a gap in the mountains to form the Black Sea. Scientific American Frontiers (on PBS) recently had a program on it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:50:09 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...there's some evidence for a catastophic flood occurring near the Bosporus in Asia Minor, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, where it broke through a gap in the mountains to form the Black Sea. |
That might work, except that Genesis clearly indicates rain, and the Black Sea hasn't yet receded to dry land. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:54:00 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
"Water vapor effect: Humid air is lighter (less dense) exerting less pressure than dry air at the same temperature. |
This effect has its limits (obviously, a bucket of water is heavier than a bucket of dry air). The problem is keeping so much water in the form of vapor.
For the earth's atmosphere, the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. For this flood, there would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed. The pressure at the earth's surface would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. Each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part air (far greater than the 23g per cubic meter you specified at 77 degrees). To keep an atmosphere that's nearly 100% water from condensing, the temperature would have to be raised well beyond its normal boiling point. Noah would be cooked. |
Supersaturation would play into that though... you can have a parcel of air that is in excess of 100% and not condence (percipitate) but that is hardcore metro geekdom.
Same idea as having water in liquid form below 0c and not in solid form ... supercooled water |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:12:04 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
You can have a parcel of air that is in excess of 100% and not condense (percipitate)... |
True, but only under special conditions which would be inhospitable to life (a vacuum totally free of particulate matter). |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:30:27 PM · #636 |
aieeeeeeee.
i just wanted to post 'cause i'm still reading this. i don't really want to get dragged into a biblical debate, so i'm just lurking.
once we start talking about drag queens again, i'm jumping back in. watch out! my lee press-on nails are firmly affixed and ready to scratch your eyes out!
:P |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 12:06:23 AM · #637 |
Sorry, Muck. Looks like the gist of that discussion was that the idea of marriage would be so corrupted by interracial couples interreligious couples buddhists convicted murderers atheists homosexuals getting married that the only solution is to ban the practice. Oh, and there is no bigotry involved. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 12:36:50 AM · #638 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by hokie:
How is it that people are more interested in discussing the unknowable versus the danger to our human rights? :-/ |
Not being an American I may be missing the gist of the argument in this instance. Where exactly does it say in your constitution that denying anyone the right to marry is an infringement of their rights.
Do I believe gays should have the right to marry... of course I do, but I hardly see this as a human right issue.
Ray |
One obvious place is in the Fourteenth Amendment where it says we all have a right to equal protection (treatment) under the laws. If persons A and B are allowed to marry and get certain government benefits (like tax relief), while persons C and D are not allowed to marry and get those benefits -- merely because of their gender -- you have discrimination and unequal treatment. Rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, adoption and child support -- there's a list somewhere of about 1400 specific rights or opportunities available to a couple composed of a man and a woman, but which denied to a couple made up of two men or two women, regardless of their degree of commitment or contractual obligations to each other.
That doesn't even begin to get into the rights to privacy or freedom of association, which are either explicit or implied in the Constitution. Remember, the one overriding philosophy of the Founding Fathers was to limit as much as possible the ability of the government to intrude itself on and interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. |
what about equal protection for c,d,e,f if you happened to live in utah
or
c and d where c is a 31 year old man and d is a 14 year old boy
or
c and d when they are siblings or cousins or immediate family members
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:21:31 AM · #639 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...there's some evidence for a catastophic flood occurring near the Bosporus in Asia Minor, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, where it broke through a gap in the mountains to form the Black Sea. |
That might work, except that Genesis clearly indicates rain, and the Black Sea hasn't yet receded to dry land. |
I wasn't offering it as evidence for the literal veracity of Genesis, but as a plausible possibility for a catastrophic pre-historic event which could have served as an inspiration for the myth. I believe that is the premise of the film's producers as well. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:33:22 AM · #640 |
Well, keep adult/child relationships out of it, because we already recognize that kids under a certain age are not intellectually or emotionally capable of being responsible.
As far as polygamy/polyandry or kissin'cousins, I'm of an open mind about that. If the parties involved can work out a contract which is voluntarily accepted by everyone, I'm not sure the government has much business interfering. The health reasons for prohibiting marriage of close relatives are largely gone, and a variety of group mariages are accepted by otherwise-legitimate religious organizations -- I'm not quite sure how a ban would pass consitutional muster.
My own opinion is that there'd be very few cases where people would be voluntarily interested in such arrangements, but otherwise I'm not sure it's the government's business unless they're double-dipping for benefits.
Besides, think of the ratings bonanza when they contest their divorce before Judge Judy ... : ) |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:35:06 AM · #641 |
| Nobody's mentioned the important role gay couples play in reducing abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and world population pressure. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:44:06 AM · #642 |
Just have to post to say these last few pages have been very entertaining and educational.
"Ignorance is bliss is like saying masturbation is bliss. Sure if feels good while you’re doing it, but in the end, you’re just fucking yourself."
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:21:20 AM · #643 |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:53:41 AM · #644 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
once we start talking about drag queens again, i'm jumping back in. watch out! my lee press-on nails are firmly affixed and ready to scratch your eyes out!
:P |
lol, time to change your user icon? :-) |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:32:21 AM · #645 |
Don't we get a shot every year against an evolved flu strain?
The rate at which virus and other micro-organisms adapt and evolve is incredible. I would think that, in itself, would lead even the most challenged to at least agree in very basic forms of adaption and possible evolution. Or are the types of biological adaption we witness every day in common bacteria and even insects even pertinent to discussions of humans.
Just curious to the answer as I don't claim to be expert in biology or anything like that.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 08:33:07. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:54:45 AM · #646 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Don't we get a shot every year against an evolved flu strain?
The rate at which virus and other micro-organisms adapt and evolve is incredible. I would think that, in itself, would lead even the most challenged to at least agree in very basic forms of adaption and possible evolution. Or are the types of biological adaption we witness every day in common bacteria and even insects even pertinent to discussions of humans.
Just curious to the answer as I don't claim to be expert in biology or anything like that. |
I don't claim to be an expert either. One answer given by creatists is that evolution occurs on a micro scale, but not on the macro. So virii can evolve into different strains, but fish cannot become humans. And scientists will never witness such an event (as if witnessing everything were relevant).
From a biologist's POV, the speed of reproduction and massive population size in virii and small organisms allows us to see the mechanisms that take millennia on the macro scale where the speed of reproduction is so much slower. On the borderline there are small creatures with reasonably quick reproductive cycles, such as mosquitoes, where changes can be seen over decades. We surmise that this is happening in other life forms, though obviously funding is always an issue and some animals (eg mosquitoes) are of more practical relevance to funders than others.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:20:57 AM · #647 |
Virii 'evolve' only laterally, if we decide to call this evolution. Their rna sequences change and therefore also their impact on other organisms, but the overall complexity remains unchanged. 4 billion years of biology have not managed to produce multicell viral organisms for example.
So far, all lab experiments and simulations on single-cell organisms have only observed 'devolution', change toward less complexity, strictly in conformity with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. One might argue that the real evolution is a rare event and difficult to spot in a lab, but then, in order for life to reach the complexity we have today, it really must have been happening almost with every generation.
Besides, even if evolution as a process proves correct (so far it's still but a feasible hypothesis), it doesn't explain biogenesis.
How and why did anorganic matter suddenly acquire characteristics of life? Does anyone know what the odds are of a single most primitive organism capable of self-reproduction forming out of a random process? |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:34:21 AM · #648 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
4 billion years of biology have not managed to produce multicell viral organisms for example. |
Viruses are single cell organisms by definition, and for all we know they DID evolve to protozoans, etc. Macro level changes aren't that hard to find unless you're going out of your way to avoid them. We can observe two-headed cows, transsexuals, human tails and "wolfman" hair conditions. If such radical random changes provided a significant survival advantage, there could be a shift to those new features in just a few hundred or thousand years.
We don't yet know how the first living organisms developed, but that doesn't mean we won't figure it out eventually. In the past, we didn't know how lightning or stars formed either.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 10:44:39. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:45:38 AM · #649 |
OK, more theology questions:
If you (you that blindly support theology and everything it states without questioning) cannot accept that this world and the universe was created with a big bang and that everything evolved from it, please answer this question:
Who created god(s)?
If you say - god(s) just exist, how does your argument bear any more credibility than the one of the universe creation that also just happened?
If you say that some other entity created god(s) then you're creating an antithesis. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:57:42 AM · #650 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Virii 'evolve' only laterally, if we decide to call this evolution. Their rna sequences change and therefore also their impact on other organisms, but the overall complexity remains unchanged. 4 billion years of biology have not managed to produce multicell viral organisms for example.
So far, all lab experiments and simulations on single-cell organisms have only observed 'devolution', change toward less complexity, strictly in conformity with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. One might argue that the real evolution is a rare event and difficult to spot in a lab, but then, in order for life to reach the complexity we have today, it really must have been happening almost with every generation.
Besides, even if evolution as a process proves correct (so far it's still but a feasible hypothesis), it doesn't explain biogenesis.
How and why did anorganic matter suddenly acquire characteristics of life? Does anyone know what the odds are of a single most primitive organism capable of self-reproduction forming out of a random process? |
It is one area that evolutionary biologists are studying all the time. Various theories and hyptheses (which have a method of being tested in a laboratory setting) have been proposed and tested. The basic though is that organic material can arise out of inorganic material if certain condiditons are met, as shown my the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's I think. It has since been replicated many times. So, the organic building blocks of life have been created, and there are theories about how they evolved into DNA and RNA. One of the theories is called a "crepe model" where the nucleotides in RNA bonded together through some stuff I don't have the info handy for the moment. From there, another theory is that there existed an RNA world, and through evolution of different enzymes evolved into the DNA - RNA - Protein cycle we know today. Bear in mind, these are all theories, but they are being tested under the scientific method used today. Also bear in mind these things are happening over billions of years, an amount of time that we, as humans, basically can't truely understand. Also bear in mind, if you believe in creationism as dictated by the bible, I think the world is only six million years old then, right? Someone can correct me on that.
So there you have it in a nutshell some verious theories about how organic stuff came out of inorganic stuff.
Regarding multicell viral organisms, I do believe that they are of a completely different domain than multicellular animals. Virus are in the Bacteria domain, and all multicellular organisms (with a few exceptions I think) are of the Eukarya domain.
Just a note about evolution. One of the common misconceptions about evolution is that evolution happened in a very linear way. It's been stated in this thread, but I'd like to reiterate that evolution is much more like a tree, not a linear progression.
I'm not trying to clash with anyone, I'm just trying to answer questions to the best of my ability since I don't have my notes in front of me.
Edit: disclaimer in that I'm no expert on this stuff.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 10:58:52. |
|
