As one of my GCSE options i took religious studies, and last week we had a creationist come in to talk about genesis one or something like that

He said that the creationist evolutionary tree is different to one that acctually makes sense, not in thoes exact words, but yeah
anyway, he said that the one that makes sense starts with one organism or something like that, and then eventually leads to us, in one tree
And the one that he believes is lots of little trees for each type of animal to evolve from, e.g. wolves start one tree leading onto dogs, or crocodiles to lizards and stuff like that.

at the end i asked him how that was possible, and what the wolf would have come from, how any of the first animals evolved, and he said that they were the ones that got onto the arc.....
He said that all the animals and people we have today, all came from the animals that got on the ark and noahs family
Eurgh, that doesnt make any sense to me at all...

How could that even happen?

Lol ^_^ Darn good question I say...

MV Wrote:How could that even happen?

Maybe... in a galaxy far far away...

Or perhaps one just has to have a neurological disorder to think it could even happen?

One sure-fire way is to make it rain for a really long time...

What tree did the Platypus come from?

(November 12, 2009 at 1:16 pm)Meatball Wrote: What tree did the Platypus come from?

The Palm tree. Isn't it obvious?

(November 12, 2009 at 12:53 pm)MetalVampire Wrote: As one of my GCSE options i took religious studies, and last week we had a creationist come in to talk about genesis one or something like that

He said that the creationist evolutionary tree is different to one that acctually makes sense, not in thoes exact words, but yeah
anyway, he said that the one that makes sense starts with one organism or something like that, and then eventually leads to us, in one tree
And the one that he believes is lots of little trees for each type of animal to evolve from, e.g. wolves start one tree leading onto dogs, or crocodiles to lizards and stuff like that.

at the end i asked him how that was possible, and what the wolf would have come from, how any of the first animals evolved, and he said that they were the ones that got onto the arc.....
He said that all the animals and people we have today, all came from the animals that got on the ark and noahs family
Eurgh, that doesnt make any sense to me at all...

How could that even happen?

According to Biblical creation, God created the animals after their "kind". Now it cannot be said exactly what the original "kinds" were. But it sure makes sense to me that given two animals that are of say the "dog kind" which have a lot of potential diversity built into the DNA thereof, all the types of dogs we observe today could certainly have been produced. So if your question is could all things that we call dogs have come from two original dogs, I think the answer is yes. Could all the cats we see today have come from two original cats? Yes. Could all the humans we see today have come from two original humans? Yes. So why does this make less sense than to say that we all come from some original organism? Why is this inconsistent with what we actually observe?

As to the platypus, maybe it was its own kind?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Platypus

All you ever needed to know about them

rjh4 Wrote:According to Biblical creation, God created the animals after their "kind". Now it cannot be said exactly what the original "kinds" were. But it sure makes sense to me that given two animals that are of say the "dog kind" which have a lot of potential diversity built into the DNA thereof, all the types of dogs we observe today could certainly have been produced. So if your question is could all things that we call dogs have come from two original dogs, I think the answer is yes. Could all the cats we see today have come from two original cats? Yes. Could all the humans we see today have come from two original humans? Yes. So why does this make less sense than to say that we all come from some original organism? Why is this inconsistent with what we actually observe?

'fact' 1: God created animals after their kind. Meaning: He didn't design the animals himself, because their archetype already existed.

(Actual) fact 2: It makes less sense, because 'God' is a part of it... and it ignores all of the evidence and proof that it actually did not happen that way. After all... the sun could 'REALLY?' orbit the Earth... except for the FACT that it has been proven that it doesn't.

(November 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Saerules Wrote: 'fact' 1: God created animals after their kind. Meaning: He didn't design the animals himself, because their archetype already existed.

(Actual) fact 2: It makes less sense, because 'God' is a part of it... and it ignores all of the evidence and proof that it actually did not happen that way. After all... the sun could 'REALLY?' orbit the Earth... except for the FACT that it has been proven that it doesn't.

You need to be more clear because I do not have any idea what you are talking about. What is your basis for your first fact? I do not follow fact 2 and what exactly are you referring to regarding the sun? Again, if you want to discuss specific issues, I am happy to do so, but this kind of thing just seems to muddy the waters.

(November 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm)Saerules Wrote: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Platypus

All you ever needed to know about them

Brilliant link Sae!

rjh4 Wrote:According to Biblical creation, God created the animals after their "kind". Now it cannot be said exactly what the original "kinds" were. But it sure makes sense to me that given two animals that are of say the "dog kind" which have a lot of potential diversity built into the DNA thereof, all the types of dogs we observe today could certainly have been produced. So if your question is could all things that we call dogs have come from two original dogs, I think the answer is yes. Could all the cats we see today have come from two original cats? Yes. Could all the humans we see today have come from two original humans? Yes. So why does this make less sense than to say that we all come from some original organism? Why is this inconsistent with what we actually observe?

Occam's Razor...

(November 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm)rjh4 Wrote: So why does this make less sense than to say that we all come from some original organism? Why is this inconsistent with what we actually observe?

Because what we observe isn't that dogs all come from the same "kind" of dog, and that's the end of it. That original "dog" is part of a several species that all came from the same "kind" of <insert common ancestor here>, and that common ancestor came shares another common ancestor with other organisms.

What the evidence points to is every organism today, whether it be animal or plant, coming from a single common ancestor billions of years ago, namely a (very) simple cell that formed through some process that we currently do not know about (although we can make several likely hypotheses about it).