Top Ten Creationist Arguments
The crocodile, and the mighty cockroach have found their niche, and don't have to change any in order to survive. The thing is though, cockroaches have become so dependent on humans for food and shelter that if we became extinct, it's thought that they would soon follow us. Or who knows, maybe they'd evolve in order to continue to exist.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
If something happened to all of us, the cockroaches would, unfortunately, feast on our corpses. I know it sounds harsh, but they would. It would keep them going a while. Their population might dwindle some after we have turned to dust, but there's enough litter to keep them going. They can live in dead leaves.
Maybe at one time, but they've become so dependent on us - and in fact, so urbanized as most of the rest of us - that they probably couldn't get by without us in the long term.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
It's just the fact they are tiny insects that works in their evolutionary favor. Insects are wonderful survivors in the grand scheme of things.
This seems contradictory to me, with what you say afterwards about how some species do not change much yet survive..?
Many species that are "extinct" did not go extinct through a die off but through their own transition into later species. Like I mentioned before, Australopithecus is an ancestor of ours, and is extinct, but it is not as if it suddenly died off and then there was the next step in evolution. A lot of Creationists use this fallacious argument. I refer to it as the Pokemon Fallacy. I sincerely believe Pokemon has affected the psyche of a great portion of the general public towards evolution, and that is both humorous and bad.
Crocodiles and cockroaches have changed. The crocodile family is really in its waning period. Its high point was shared with the dinosaurs. There were many types of crocodiles occupying many niches, including land crocodiles, walking on raised legs (not splayed out like its relatives) that are suspected to have filled a niche later occupied by large canids and felidae. Cockroach species number in the thousands and only a handful coexist with humans, and though I have not read much into its history, they and mantises seem to share a common ancestor
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
This seems contradictory to me, with what you say afterwards about how some species do not change much yet survive..?
One contradiction in the Theory Of Evolution. Some species evolve very little and survive while others evolve into another species meaning they are extinct while still others may evolve and die off in a mass extinction, like when the climate changes abruptly, they lose their food source or they are hunted by humans.
Crocodiles and cockroaches have changed. The crocodile family is really in its waning period. Its high point was shared with the dinosaurs. There were many types of crocodiles occupying many niches, including land crocodiles, walking on raised legs (not splayed out like its relatives) that are suspected to have filled a niche later occupied by large canids and felidae. Cockroach species number in the thousands and only a handful coexist with humans, and though I have not read much into its history, they and mantises seem to share a common ancestor
Even if the species didn't die off in massive quantities due to an external event, extinction is still extinction. The species no longer lives. It's a part of the extinction principle even though the reason it died off isn't due to a cataclysmic event. It's still gone and most likely will not return for a while. It supports my idea of transition and change.
Does the reason why a species is extinct matter as much as the fact that it is?
Here is an analogy. Like all analogies, it is flawed, but still.
The Hudson Bay Company was founded in the 17th century in the fur trades, and still exists, though it is now a department store: it adapted to a new situation. The Dutch East India United Company was also founded in the 17th century for trade with Asia, became the richest company in Europe by 1700, and was abolished in the early 19th century because it was bankrupt. The Plymouth Company was founded in the 17th century, and did go much further than that.
Why should all businesses change or fail at the same rate?
Why should all species evolve or become extinct at the same rate?
Why is this a flaw?
DonQuoteme
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Because, NUMBSKULLS, we didn't evolve from all apes, but from one specific type!! !!
How hard is that to grasp?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Even the statement that we evolved from monkeys is not exactly accurate. It would be more precise to say that we have a common evolutionary lineage
Exactly.
Chimps / gorillas / bonobos still exist for the same reason that we still exist; we all evolved from a common ancestor that became extinct. In this sense we have all evolved for the same amount of time - but evolved to suit different environments.
DonQuoteme
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Theory of Extinction states the end is not an endless process of evolving, it's extinction.
As I see it, if the fossil record is full of simply extinct animals, and not of earlier life that much of modern animals are descended from, then I fear we are on a collision course with mass extinction , as most of the earth's species have been dying off.
So yeah, in that sense, it's actually a lot more comforting to believe evolution explains the fossil record.
But the fossil record doesn't just contain extinct creatures. Scientists are now realising that many are "living fossils", i.e. the same creatures still exist today. (Creationists use this as an argument in their favour). These creatures clearly found a niche early on. The scientific estimate that 99 percent of all creatures are now extinct may be a gross exaggeration. We don't see fossil evidence of the transitional species because the probability of them becoming fossilised is even slimmer than well established species by virtue of the fact they are changing / mutating at a relatively fast rate (by evolutionary time-scale standards).
Mass extinctions appear to have been a regular event in our distant past, but we can't assume these will continue. Perhaps, for instance, they were all caused by stray asteroids and there are none remaining that are on a collision course.
DonQuoteme
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Here is an analogy. Like all analogies, it is flawed, but still.
The Hudson Bay Company was founded in the 17th century in the fur trades, and still exists, though it is now a department store: it adapted to a new situation. The Dutch East India United Company was also founded in the 17th century for trade with Asia, became the richest company in Europe by 1700, and was abolished in the early 19th century because it was bankrupt. The Plymouth Company was founded in the 17th century, and did go much further than that.
Why should all businesses change or fail at the same rate?
Why should all species evolve or become extinct at the same rate?
Why is this a flaw?
It isn't a flaw. Things only evolve if they need to. If they are well adapted to their environment and their environment doesn't change, they don't need to change. It's the sudden changes to a species' environment that it can't adapt to fast enough that causes extinction. This may be an incoming asteroid that fills the upper atmosphere with fine dust cooling the planet, or it might be a business's inability to adapt to technological changes. It's the same principle. Examples of evolution are everywhere you look.
However, I don't see it so much as survival of the fittest as much as survival of the best adapted to its environment i.e. those that make themselves indispensable to the ecosystem.
To put the above in simpler terms: a species adapts because certain traits present in some members but not others (larger beaks in birds, for example) enable those members to prosper better in their environment. If a species has evolved very little, it's because it has never faced a situation where its traits are not helping it to survive.
Sharks, for example, have not evolved much over the years - hell, a Great White is pretty much just a scaled-down Megaladon. The only real adaptation they've ever had to make was to get larger or smaller, benefiting sharks that had those size changes by letting them hunt different kinds of prey more easily. Sharks haven't changed much because past a certain point, they've never had a change that significantly increased their ability to thrive whereas, say, birds did.
_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,936
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Theory of Extinction states the end is not an endless process of evolving, it's extinction.
As I see it, if the fossil record is full of simply extinct animals, and not of earlier life that much of modern animals are descended from, then I fear we are on a collision course with mass extinction , as most of the earth's species have been dying off.
So yeah, in that sense, it's actually a lot more comforting to believe evolution explains the fossil record.
But the fossil record doesn't just contain extinct creatures. Scientists are now realising that many are "living fossils", i.e. the same creatures still exist today. (Creationists use this as an argument in their favour). These creatures clearly found a niche early on. The scientific estimate that 99 percent of all creatures are now extinct may be a gross exaggeration. We don't see fossil evidence of the transitional species because the probability of them becoming fossilised is even slimmer than well established species by virtue of the fact they are changing / mutating at a relatively fast rate (by evolutionary time-scale standards).
Mass extinctions appear to have been a regular event in our distant past, but we can't assume these will continue. Perhaps, for instance, they were all caused by stray asteroids and there are none remaining that are on a collision course.
Again, absolutely.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fhvmg9oiWU[/youtube]
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,936
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
What is both sad and hilarious is how many of those exact argument's I've run across - even here, on this forum (which, I'd like to mention - most politics/religion forums are cesspits. This one is not different, but it's a higher-quality cesspit).
I hope, one day, that I'll hear something original from a creationist. Sadly, I've only ever heard a decent proposal from Shrox (who is awesome).
_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."
I hope, one day, that I'll hear something original from a creationist. Sadly, I've only ever heard a decent proposal from Shrox (who is awesome).
I don't expect to ever hear something original from a Creationist. Think about it: everything they will say invariably comes back to one book, which is of questionable value ethically and no value scientifically. Unless they start sourcing new material, we will be subjected to the same old fallacies over and over again, but with a different title (Creationism turns into Intelligent Design, etc). One reason I found this video entertaining is because I have seen all of these devices used here in PPR within the past 3 months at least
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,936
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
I once had an Anthropology instructor who had described himself as a creationist - but only in the sense that he had credited God with the creation of the universe, and everything alive in it. But otherwise, he accepted evolution.
Basically, my point of view.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Basically, my point of view.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
A totally unscientific belief since it leads to no testable conclusions.
God-Did-It is NOT an explanation of anything.
ruveyn
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
How do you evaluate arguments? How do NTs? |
24 May 2024, 6:28 am |
SCOTUS Begins Hearing Arguments In OR Homelessness Case |
22 Apr 2024, 6:59 pm |