Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:[
Eastern glass lizard

Ophisaurus

Pygopodidae

Superficially these look alike but I assure you that internally they do not resemble snakes.
Its like calling Koala bears, Bears.

Well How could I be mistaken enyone can palinly see those look nothing like snakes. Nope not a thing in common. Internally they are very similar to snakes.

Natural selection works on whatever muations may occour that are benificial in that environment. So now evolution knokws what environemnts there were at all times, and knows what muations can and cannot occor.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Ok fine call em legless lizrds if you want I don't care. Umm the ocean variety don't crawl on the ground, they swim.
Just because the snake has learned to adapt without the prescense of arms doesn't mean that there were adaptive forces that caused it to lose it's arms and legs. If this is the case when all the prey lived in burrows why didn't everything lose its legs and just regrow them from natural selection when the prey moved out of the burrows?

Because selection can only work on mutations which occur. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Well since evolution shows that things grew legs and things lost legs, than what's the problem? I guess perhaps it doesn't get anymore fundemental than that, thanks.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Superficially these look alike but I assure you that internally they do not resemble snakes.
Its like calling Koala bears, Bears.

Well How could I be mistaken enyone can palinly see those look nothing like snakes. Nope not a thing in common. Internally they are very similar to snakes.

I doubt a herpatologist would validate this claim. You speak from ignorance my friend.

Jbuza wrote:Natural selection works on whatever muations may occour that are benificial in that environment. So now evolution knokws what environemnts there were at all times, and knows what muations can and cannot occor.

Again do you have an alternative explanation for the existance of multiple forms which lack limbs. Did the glass snakes and leggless lizards of Australia also give apples to eve?

These two look alike don't they?


One of them is not a mouse.

Bgood wrote
I doubt a herpetologist would validate this claim. You speak from ignorance my friend


Well there we have it the herpetologists have handed down their decree from on high. It is an arbitrary distinction. We have made the phylogenetic charts so that is how life came to be. Ask the herpetologists to explain this . . .

Boas and pythons have remnants of hind limbs that show up as tiny spurs. (does that make them into legless lizards?)
some Monitor Lizards like the Komodo Dragon have flexible jaws.
some burrowing lizards have no visible eardrums too. The Earless Monitor Lizard and the burrowing skink you showed are examples
Many burrowing lizards have small limbs
Some lizards have no eyelids Many geckos lack eyelids
not all lizards lose their tails easily
Like snakes, anoles shed their skin

The point is it is an arbitrary distinction. You can base the difference on eyes, but that doesn't work just right, on ears, but that doesn't work just right, on limbs etc. etc. etc.

Snakes crawl. Lizards walk.
--
Bgood Wrote
Again do you have an alternative explanation for the existence of multiple forms which lack limbs.

What multiple forms?

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
I doubt a herpetologist would validate this claim. You speak from ignorance my friend

Well there we have it the herpetologists have handed down their decree from on high. It is an arbitrary distinction. We have made the phylogenetic charts so that is how life came to be. Ask the herpetologists to explain this . . .

This is not based on the charts. The distinction is based on actual examination of the animals themselves. Have you ever sat down and actually studied the anatomy of these organisms? A decree was not handed down, the data is there for all to see. Do you want some numbers so you can talk to someone who actually deals with lizards and snakes? You can go to the library yourself and examine the anatomy of these organisms.

Jbuza wrote:Boas and pythons have remnants of hind limbs that show up as tiny spurs. (does that make them into legless lizards?)

No because their anatomy is that of a snake. Care to explain the remnants however?

Jbuza wrote:some Monitor Lizards like the Komodo Dragon have flexible jaws.

And your point is? Do they share anything else with snakes? Do they have a reduced left lung?

Jbuza wrote:some burrowing lizards have no visible eardrums too. The Earless Monitor Lizard and the burrowing skink you showed are examples
Many burrowing lizards have small limbs

So are they lizards which God created or did this happen through microevolution? So God created these cursed and not snakes?

Jbuza wrote:Some lizards have no eyelids Many geckos lack eyelids
not all lizards lose their tails easily

This is true, but your point is? No snakes lose their tails easily.

Jbuza wrote:Like snakes, anoles shed their skin

Again your point is? Lizards and snakes shed their skin.

Jbuza wrote:The point is it is an arbitrary distinction. You can base the difference on eyes, but that doesn't work just right, on ears, but that doesn't work just right, on limbs etc. etc. etc.

Not the case.
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Ophisaurus_apodus/
This will get you started.
http://www.wits.ac.za/apes/Devi/lecnotes.htm

Jbuza wrote:Snakes crawl. Lizards walk.

See, it is you that is being arbitrary.
And birds fly? I suppose a penguin is not a bird, and neither is an ostritch.
There is empirical data out there if you wish to spend some time on it.

Jbuza wrote:--
Bgood Wrote
Again do you have an alternative explanation for the existence of multiple forms which lack limbs.

What multiple forms?

Again denial, so much for your open forum of thought.

Jbuza wrote:What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs.

Still don't understand what "singularity" means, but moving on...I would appreciate it if you could provide me with references you've used to come to the conclusion you provided below regarding legless lizard anatomy:

Jbuza wrote:Internally they are very similar to snakes.

Is this your opinion or do you have references to back it up? As stated previously, this is not a judgement handed down by herpetologists; it is based on simple analyses of body structure and function. My sources, which include many predominant herpetology textbooks (Pough 1998, Savage, 2002...and so on) list a host of features that distinguish legless lizards from snakes such as ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangement, among others. I should mention that I'm a herpetologist, so I have the resources to investigate claims of this nature. In any case, my mention of legless lizards was only to show that there are many legless terrestrial organisms. Some others that less-closely resemble snakes would include gastropods (snails and slugs) and nematodes; these groups are also highly adapted to their niche of being legless, and the adaptations can be viewed as advantageous. Do you at least now recognize that snakes are not the only legless terrestrial organism?

thereal wrote:Is this your opinion or do you have references to back it up?

Yes it is my opinion, and yes there is evidence. I have already pointed out why, "ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangements" don't work any more perfectly to distinguish between snakes and lizards than crawling around on the belly does. I don't have time this minute, but if you press the matter I can show examples of "snake" ears in lizards, forked tounges in lizards, pelvis remanants in snakes, and similarity in skin structures. I don't see how this arbitrary ditinction works any better than my distinction about crawling around on the belly.

thereal wrote: Some others that less-closely resemble snakes would include gastropods (snails and slugs) and nematodes; these groups are also highly adapted to their niche of being legless, and the adaptations can be viewed as advantageous. Do you at least now recognize that snakes are not the only legless terrestrial organism?

Sorry, I was unclear and I misspoke. What I meant was that the snake is singular in that it was cursed and is singular in the fact that it crawls around on its' belly. Since I was mistaken before I best be quite specific about what I mean this time.

The snake is the only organism that we see that is crawling around on the ground on its belly. In Genesis 3 the sanke is comapred to cattle and beasts of the field, and that it will be cursed above these.

Snails use a foot.

nematodes
Beneath the cuticle is a hypodermis and a layer of longitudinal muscle. The combination of the flexure of these muscles with the high pressure of the system produces a characteristic whip-like wriggle that Nematodes use to swim. Scientifically this is called undulatory propulsion with sinusoidal waves passing back along the body.

http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/nematoda.html


Most nematodes lie on their sides and the resulting dorsi-ventral undulations move the nematode in the horizontal plane through an aquatic medium

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~biol240/labs/l ... atode.html

Earthworms have bristles or setae in groups around or under their body. The bristles, paired in groups on each segment, can be moved in and out to grip the ground or the walls of a burrow. Worms travel through underground tunnels or move about on the soil surface by using their bristles as anchors pushing themselves forward or backward using strong stretching and contracting muscles.

http://sps.k12.ar.us/massengale/earthwo ... s.htm#move

Jbuza wrote:

thereal wrote:Is this your opinion or do you have references to back it up?

Yes it is my opinion, and yes there is evidence. I have already pointed out why, "ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangements" don't work any more perfectly to distinguish between snakes and lizards than crawling around on the belly does. I don't have time this minute, but if you press the matter I can show examples of "snake" ears in lizards, forked tounges in lizards, pelvis remanants in snakes, and similarity in skin structures. I don't see how this arbitrary ditinction works any better than my distinction about crawling around on the belly.

The snake is the only organism that we see that is crawling around on the ground on its belly. In Genesis 3 the sanke is comapred to cattle and beasts of the field, and that it will be cursed above these.

So all snakes came from the original snake and microevolved from them?
Even the leggless lizard snakes which have completely different anatomical features? And the glass snakes which also have completely different anatomical features?

If a snake is just a lizard which lost is legs that why do we still have lizards? In other words what did Adam use to differentiate snakes from lizards? Why not call them all lizards?

Mind you I am only asking you all of these questions because you seem to be operating on the assertion that the conditions of the Universe were fundamentally different in the past, and that you claim to know them. Or at least deduce them from a few lines in the bible.

On the same token, I can claim that light was dark and dark was light untill the fall and that what we beleive to be light is indeed darkness, only we cannot know any better because we are separated from God.

Jbuza wrote: That's true there were processes at work that we don't see, and there is the power of God.

Yes, and the evidence and bible together we have to see how that may have happened, to counter old ager claims to the contrary.

I think John 1:1 is clear that all things that God created he created through his word. That there was nothing that he did create, that he didn't create through his Word.

Well, of course! In a merged universe, I would think that things work closely in harmony with God's will. He speaks, and physical and spiritual elements respond to make it happen pronto. If we were sepererated off into a physical only universe, we might see that it does not work quite the same as in heaven. He still does plenty, but I see it as more localized miracles, or applicatins of the spiritual, that on a universal level?

I think that through the power of his Word he caused all the dry land to bring forth, and all the sea to bring forth. I think through his word he caused the Garden of Eden to Grow Just as he wanted it to be for Man.

Well, He planted the garden. Apparently growing from there was no worry at all, as I say, Adam had trees a few days later. Then, for spreading worldide later, again, conditions were great at the time.

I believe the vast majority of fossils were laid down after the flood of Noah's time. I find it the only event convincing evough to create the vast quantity of sediment and wide spread enough to kill animals where they lived.

If you were right, I would be happy. Long as the bible is true. However, I have been exposed to pretty intense doubts, and scientific reasoning that makes that flood did almost everything scenario look prett weak, and at odds with some evidence. There was a flood some 4500 years ago, or whenever, etc, just as the bible says. But with the pre flood merged universe, it seems to better fit the evidence, and be bulletproof to science, not only in earth sciences, bu all areas, including cosmology!

I agree there was a mist that watered the whole face of the ground, but am not sure that there is evidence to suggest that it was on the order of what you are setting forth. I have never seen these ideas so find them interesting.

A lot of water covered the world, so a lot of it was under the earth before, as we know. Another idea that science has tattered is a canopy of some kind. Under the merged universe, however, it is now possible.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

thereal wrote:Is this your opinion or do you have references to back it up?

Yes it is my opinion, and yes there is evidence. I have already pointed out why, "ear structures, tongue structure, pelvis girdle arrangements, and lateral integument arrangements" don't work any more perfectly to distinguish between snakes and lizards than crawling around on the belly does. I don't have time this minute, but if you press the matter I can show examples of "snake" ears in lizards, forked tounges in lizards, pelvis remanants in snakes, and similarity in skin structures. I don't see how this arbitrary ditinction works any better than my distinction about crawling around on the belly.

The snake is the only organism that we see that is crawling around on the ground on its belly. In Genesis 3 the sanke is comapred to cattle and beasts of the field, and that it will be cursed above these.

So all snakes came from the original snake and microevolved from them?
Even the leggless lizard snakes which have completely different anatomical features? And the glass snakes which also have completely different anatomical features?

If a snake is just a lizard which lost is legs that why do we still have lizards? In other words what did Adam use to differentiate snakes from lizards? Why not call them all lizards?

Mind you I am only asking you all of these questions because you seem to be operating on the assertion that the conditions of the Universe were fundamentally different in the past, and that you claim to know them. Or at least deduce them from a few lines in the bible.

On the same token, I can claim that light was dark and dark was light untill the fall and that what we beleive to be light is indeed darkness, only we cannot know any better because we are separated from God.

My take on this is that in the pre split world, hyper evolution, or adaption could have and did occur! The needed adapting to a meat eating world, or post flood weather, etc all would have happened at fantastically accelerated rates compared to today's rates. For example,

"Analysis of the tigers' mitochondrial DNA revealed that all tigers diverged from a common ancestor " (one original pair) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4075779.stm

So, with snakes, we could also get oodles of types similarly as well.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:First off there is no verse which sais that the snake was even in a tree. You must have picked that up from some illustrations. Next there is still no direct evidence that the snake changed at all.

Good point. We don't know it was up in the tree, or not! But This creature didn't start as a snake as we know it, it became one. The creature that talked to Eve was compared to a beast of the field. Not to creeping things. A lion, or a goat, etc. The curse made a change in this creature it seems apparent. As this bible commentary points out.
"Remember, this is the serpent before the curse of Genesis 3:14-15 and may have been different than the serpent we know today. This creature didn't start as a snake as we know it, it became one.

i. "The creature that tempted Eve became a serpent as a result of God's judgment on it, and it went slithering away into the bushes to the intense horror of Adam and Eve" (Boice)."
http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view. ... se=1#Ge3_1

I asked you for proof for your statements. You respond by dodging the issue? Why did the snake need anything at all, back then the world could have had no gravity, or the ground was spongy and springy allowing animals to bounce into the trees.

To say there was no gravity, or similar force is foolishness.

The fossils were craft projects by the first children of adam.

Not worth a response, and saying Granny or Adam crafted fossils is foolishness.

When the end times come mosquitos in the middle of taking blood will spit it out and return to eating weeds.

The end times are here, as the signs indicate. The new heavens don't come in the end times. That is about a 1000 years later.

Do you have any actual points, or do you feel your calling here is to just mock?

Dad

I just had a comment or two about the Flood of Noah's days. I think it answers perfectly well for the observations. I have gone into far more detail on my views of the flood at the following link. I would like to hear what problems you have with or have heard about the flood. IT answers for plate tectonics, explains the forces of tectonics, and explains the geological anomalies that uniformitarian geology fails to explain.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1297.html

dad wrote:For example, "Analysis of the tigers' mitochondrial DNA revealed that all tigers diverged from a common ancestor " (one original pair) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4075779.stm

You don't have to agree with the findings of research scientists. Certainly different people can examine the same data and come to different conclusions. But your statement that all tigers came from one original pair is not at all what was reported. It is a misrepresentation. The actual statement is

Phylogeography and Genetic Ancestry of Tigers (Panthera tigris) Shu-Jin Luo, Jae-Heup Kim, Warren E. Johnson, Joelle van der Walt, Janice Martenson, Naoya Yuhki, Dale G. Miquelle, Olga Uphyrkina, John M. Goodrich, Howard B. Quigley, Ronald Tilson, Gerald Brady, Paolo Martelli, Vellayan Subramaniam, Charles McDougal, Sun Hean, Shi-Qiang Huang, Wenshi Pan, Ullas K. Karanth, Melvin Sunquist, James L. D. Smith, Stephen J. O'Brien wrote:We estimated the most recent common ancestor for tiger mtDNA haplotypes was 72,000—108,000 y ago, with a lower and upper bound of 39,000 y and 157,000 y, respectively.

Please note that the meaning of "common ancestor" as used by the authors is quite distinct from the meaning you seem to be using. An excellent explanation can be found at http://www.geocities.com/krishna_kunchith/misc/eve.html. Again, I am not saying that you are right or that you are wrong, just that you are misrepresenting the import of others' findings.

Jbuza wrote:Dad

I just had a comment or two about the Flood of Noah's days. I think it answers perfectly well for the observations. I have gone into far more detail on my views of the flood at the following link. I would like to hear what problems you have with or have heard about the flood. IT answers for plate tectonics, explains the forces of tectonics, and explains the geological anomalies that uniformitarian geology fails to explain.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1297.html

Well, I don't want to knock people's ideas on the flood. I probably had the same ideas months ago.
Here are a few of the problems i encountered that led me to understand that more must have been at work, that just present based things.

Canopy--pretty well impossible under physics (merged laws then solve this)
Flood --where did they get food after leaving ark? (merged world with plants growing quickly solves this)
fossil record -- this thread covers that
lifespans --how do you explain 900 plus year spans? (merged universe does)
geologic column --no need to deny it now, with merged past. It fits creation better
continental drift --I used to lean to walt brown's fast seperation of continents, but was faced with heat problems that could not be denied for fast movement. -- merged universe splves this.
water from flood --where did it go? merged world could have it taken off planet.
evolution --if any evolution does happen (adaption etc) pre split past allows for hyper evolution of creation creatures to adapt as needed, including into many species from original ark pair.

These are a few things. Cheers

sandy_mcd wrote:

dad wrote:For example, "Analysis of the tigers' mitochondrial DNA revealed that all tigers diverged from a common ancestor " (one original pair) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4075779.stm

You don't have to agree with the findings of research scientists. Certainly different people can examine the same data and come to different conclusions. But your statement that all tigers came from one original pair is not at all what was reported. It is a misrepresentation.

Fair enough, I think you mean that tigers came from one kind, and not neccesarily just one pair? If so, so what? Doesn't change anything of my point! If the adapting took place when there were hundreds of tigers of the one kind, so what? In the end, the one kind of tiger gave us all kinds we now have!!

Please note that the meaning of "common ancestor" as used by the authors is quite distinct from the meaning you seem to be using. An excellent explanation can be found at http://www.geocities.com/krishna_kunchith/misc/eve.html.

OK, I did note it, and adjusted the post accordingly! Doesn't change a thing. Oh, I didn't put the part about the dating assumptions in, because they are wrong! All we need to do is look what it may have been based on. I suspect that may be present rates of one thing or another.

Again, I am not saying that you are right or that you are wrong, just that you are misrepresenting the import of others' findings.

Actually I had assumed they meant one pair there. But if it meant just one kind, fine, as I say it changes nothing.