Creationist Corner

[Randy Reed 0]

Marsupials can also be found in South America. Just saying.

It was once commonly believed that marsupials were a primitive forerunner of modern placental mammals, but fossil evidence, first presented by researcher M.J. Spechtt in 1982, conflicts with this assumption.[citation needed] Instead, both main branches of the mammal tree appear to have evolved concurrently toward the end of the Mesozoic era. In the absence of soft tissues, such as the pouch and reproductive system, fossil marsupials can be distinguished from placentals by the form of their teeth; primitive marsupials possess four pairs of molar teeth in each jaw, whereas placental mammals never have more than three pairs.[4]Using this criterion, the earliest known marsupial is Sinodelphys szalayi, which lived in China around 125 million years ago.[5][6][7] This makes it almost contemporary to the earliest placental fossils, which have been found in the same area.[8]The discovery of Chinese marsupials appears to support the idea that marsupials reached Australia via Southeast Asia.[9] There are a few species of marsupials still living in Asia, especially in the Sulawesi region of Indonesia. These marsupials coexist with primates, hooved mammals and other placentals.[citation needed] However, due to the fact that Australia and China were separated by the wide Tethys Sea in the early Cretaceous into the Northern continent of Laurasia and Southern continent of Gondwana, marsupials had to take a much longer route around. From their origin in East Laurasia (modern day China), they spread westwards into modern North America (still attached to Eurasia) and skipped across to South America, which was connected to North America up until around 65MYA. Here they radiated into Borhyaenids and Shrew Opossums, creating a unique fauna found in South America and Antarctica (which were connected until 35MYA). Marsupials reached Australia via Antarctica about 50MYA just after Australia had split off, suggesting a single dispersion event of several of just one species, related to South America's Monito del Monte (Microbiothere), rafted across the widening, but still narrow gap between Australia and Antarctica at that time. In Australia, being the only mammals present (except a few Austrosphenids like echidnas and platypuses) they radiated into the wide varieties we see today, even island hopping some way through the Indonesian archipelagos, almost completing a circumnavigation back to their homeland in China. [10]On most continents, placental mammals were much more successful and no marsupials survived, though in South America the opossums retained a strong presence, and the Tertiary saw the genesis of marsupial predators such as the borhyaenids and the saber-toothed Thylacosmilus. In Australia, however, marsupials displaced placental mammals entirely, and have since dominated the Australian ecosystem. Marsupial success over placental mammals in Australia has been attributed to their comparatively low metabolic rate, a trait which would prove helpful in the hot Australian climate.[citation needed] As a result, native Australian placental mammals (such as hopping mice) are more recent immigrants.

[Mills 0]

I asked, I received, it changed my life. I knew me before, I know me now, it changed my life.I've seen other lives changed. I've seen miracles.

But how do you differentiate between something happening because you want it to happen, and an actual intervention from god?Maybe that isn't phrased in the best way.What seperates the feeling you get from God from a placebo effect?that feeling that changed your life, was it god? Or the feeling you get from believing that there is something out there that has a purpose for us, and loves and cares for us? If it changed your life for the better, then more power to it, whatever it is.I know we mess around with each other, but i'm genuienly curious to get your thoughts on this.

[crowTrobot 2]

it does predict exactly the same evidence -- which is the only reason the stupid "theory" even exists.

by itself it doesn't confirm, explain, (JJJ's words) or specifically predict the evidence that exists in any sense that can be related to science. it doesn't even qualify as a theory - it's just a bare vague assertion crafted to be unfalsifiable. by virtue of being unreasonable it's not even that really. it's nothing. it's saying there's no such thing as gravity - just undetectable elves pulling down on everything. it IS ignoring science.

you're proposing an additional constraint

no i'm stating that specifying a motive is necessary for the idea to even qualify as a possible explanation.

[SBriand 4]

It was once commonly believed that marsupials were a primitive forerunner of modern placental mammals, but fossil evidence, first presented by researcher M.J. Spechtt in 1982, conflicts with this assumption.[citation needed] Instead, both main branches of the mammal tree appear to have evolved concurrently toward the end of the Mesozoic era. In the absence of soft tissues, such as the pouch and reproductive system, fossil marsupials can be distinguished from placentals by the form of their teeth; primitive marsupials possess four pairs of molar teeth in each jaw, whereas placental mammals never have more than three pairs.[4]Using this criterion, the earliest known marsupial is Sinodelphys szalayi, which lived in China around 125 million years ago.[5][6][7] This makes it almost contemporary to the earliest placental fossils, which have been found in the same area.[8]The discovery of Chinese marsupials appears to support the idea that marsupials reached Australia via Southeast Asia.[9] There are a few species of marsupials still living in Asia, especially in the Sulawesi region of Indonesia. These marsupials coexist with primates, hooved mammals and other placentals.[citation needed] However, due to the fact that Australia and China were separated by the wide Tethys Sea in the early Cretaceous into the Northern continent of Laurasia and Southern continent of Gondwana, marsupials had to take a much longer route around. From their origin in East Laurasia (modern day China), they spread westwards into modern North America (still attached to Eurasia) and skipped across to South America, which was connected to North America up until around 65MYA. Here they radiated into Borhyaenids and Shrew Opossums, creating a unique fauna found in South America and Antarctica (which were connected until 35MYA). Marsupials reached Australia via Antarctica about 50MYA just after Australia had split off, suggesting a single dispersion event of several of just one species, related to South America's Monito del Monte (Microbiothere), rafted across the widening, but still narrow gap between Australia and Antarctica at that time. In Australia, being the only mammals present (except a few Austrosphenids like echidnas and platypuses) they radiated into the wide varieties we see today, even island hopping some way through the Indonesian archipelagos, almost completing a circumnavigation back to their homeland in China. [10]On most continents, placental mammals were much more successful and no marsupials survived, though in South America the opossums retained a strong presence, and the Tertiary saw the genesis of marsupial predators such as the borhyaenids and the saber-toothed Thylacosmilus. In Australia, however, marsupials displaced placental mammals entirely, and have since dominated the Australian ecosystem. Marsupial success over placental mammals in Australia has been attributed to their comparatively low metabolic rate, a trait which would prove helpful in the hot Australian climate.[citation needed] As a result, native Australian placental mammals (such as hopping mice) are more recent immigrants.

Yeah, opossums are in South America. That is what I said.

[Randy Reed 0]

Yeah, opossums are in South America. That is what I said.

HAHA

[JoeyJoJo 18]

by itself it doesn't confirm, explain, (JJJ's words) or specifically predict the evidence that exists in any sense that can be related to science. it doesn't even qualify as a theory - it's just a bare assertion crafted to be unfalsifiable. by virtue of being unreasonable it's not even that really. it's nothing. it's saying there's no such thing as gravity - just undetectable elves pulling down on everything. it IS ignoring science.

I propose we call the theory that the earth appears old even while being young, the Benjamin Button Theory.What elements does the Benjamin Button Theory need to have to qualify as a theory?

[vbnautilus 48]

I propose we call the theory that the earth appears old even while being young, the Benjamin Button Theory.What elements does the Benjamin Button Theory need to have to qualify as a theory?

For one thing, it needs to be falsifiable (aka testable). What kind of evidence would prove the Benjamin Button Theory wrong?

[Balloon guy 158]

But how do you differentiate between something happening because you want it to happen, and an actual intervention from god?Maybe that isn't phrased in the best way.What seperates the feeling you get from God from a placebo effect?that feeling that changed your life, was it god? Or the feeling you get from believing that there is something out there that has a purpose for us, and loves and cares for us? If it changed your life for the better, then more power to it, whatever it is.I know we mess around with each other, but i'm genuienly curious to get your thoughts on this.

1 Corinthians 15:19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.Of course I cannot give convincing evidence to someone else what my subjective experience is. I know what I have seen, I know what I have experienced, and it was enough for me.My situation can easily be discounted by anyone who chooses too, just as I can dismiss experiences from people in other religions.Subjective experience isn't proof.When I first began 'seeking', I prayed roughly this prayer:"I know I'm not supposed to say 'if You are real' but if You are real show yourself to me and I will believe."He did to my satisfaction.Then I began reading about other religions to make sure I wasn't getting caught up in the 'cult' etc.Like most of us, I didn't give any thought to God etc when I was younger, I had no basis to pick Christianity ( if anything I dabbled in Carlos Castaneda/New Ageism more than anything). Through reading the Bible, and finding some really good pastors on tape like John MacArthur and Chuck Smith, I found Christianity to be the only religion that encouraged you to ask questions etc. If it's the truth, why should it be afraid of investigation?I would also offer that what I first based my decision on was weak in the sense of 'enough proof'. I was mostly living by faith, and just trusting it to be truth.The Bible says that this is how it works, that even our faith is a gift from God, not of works so that no man can boast.I have read books by lawyers, scientist, and drug addicts who all present viable reasons for our faith.So far no 'problem' I've had has remained a problem for long. When I first started going to church, I could read a Bible chapter at home and have some questions, and show up to church and that would be the topic the pastor was teaching on. The first 4-5 times I thought it a co-incidence. when I took a job in another city for 6 months and began attending a different church it continued to happen. I am not a great example of Christianity, I know my short comings and my failures. But one time while praying I experienced God like many people talk about. I have heard Him speak directly to me one time, I have seen a few miracles. Could I have been fooled by my own brain? I guess.But as you said, this works for me, I'd be more foolish to go back to the belief that my existence on earth is pointless. Which was where I was before.Some people think I ate the red pill...but my life is fulfilled and I am happy, and I either get heaven, or I get the same thing everyone else gets.Win/win in my book.

[Balloon guy 158]

For one thing, it needs to be falsifiable (aka testable). What kind of evidence would prove the Benjamin Button Theory wrong?

Knowing the progression of age of every living person who has ever existed on earth?

[Mills 0]

1 Corinthians 15:19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.Of course I cannot give convincing evidence to someone else what my subjective experience is. I know what I have seen, I know what I have experienced, and it was enough for me.My situation can easily be discounted by anyone who chooses too, just as I can dismiss experiences from people in other religions.Subjective experience isn't proof.When I first began 'seeking', I prayed roughly this prayer:"I know I'm not supposed to say 'if You are real' but if You are real show yourself to me and I will believe."He did to my satisfaction.Then I began reading about other religions to make sure I wasn't getting caught up in the 'cult' etc.Like most of us, I didn't give any thought to God etc when I was younger, I had no basis to pick Christianity ( if anything I dabbled in Carlos Castaneda/New Ageism more than anything). Through reading the Bible, and finding some really good pastors on tape like John MacArthur and Chuck Smith, I found Christianity to be the only religion that encouraged you to ask questions etc. If it's the truth, why should it be afraid of investigation?I would also offer that what I first based my decision on was weak in the sense of 'enough proof'. I was mostly living by faith, and just trusting it to be truth.The Bible says that this is how it works, that even our faith is a gift from God, not of works so that no man can boast.I have read books by lawyers, scientist, and drug addicts who all present viable reasons for our faith.So far no 'problem' I've had has remained a problem for long. When I first started going to church, I could read a Bible chapter at home and have some questions, and show up to church and that would be the topic the pastor was teaching on. The first 4-5 times I thought it a co-incidence. when I took a job in another city for 6 months and began attending a different church it continued to happen. I am not a great example of Christianity, I know my short comings and my failures. But one time while praying I experienced God like many people talk about. I have heard Him speak directly to me one time, I have seen a few miracles. Could I have been fooled by my own brain? I guess.But as you said, this works for me, I'd be more foolish to go back to the belief that my existence on earth is pointless. Which was where I was before.Some people think I ate the red pill...but my life is fulfilled and I am happy, and I either get heaven, or I get the same thing everyone else gets.Win/win in my book.

thanks for responding.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Knowing the progression of age of every living person who has ever existed on earth?

This post doesn't make any sense to me.Anyway, what I would've said is...How would you prove that Benjamin Button was actually old and not that he just looked old? I suppose you would need to have evidence of the date of his birth that does not include counting back the apparent years.So, to falsify the Benjamin Button Theory, you need to prove when the universe began that does not include counting years.I...I don't know if that counts as testable.

[Balloon guy 158]

This post doesn't make any sense to me.

VB created the set of rules to justify a theory, so I presented a problem with his rules.He is supposed to respond with the flying spaghetti monster, and then I will have him!So in other words, you weren't supposed to understand that post...

[vbnautilus 48]

This post doesn't make any sense to me.Anyway, what I would've said is...How would you prove that Benjamin Button was actually old and not that he just looked old? I suppose you would need to have evidence of the date of his birth that does not include counting back the apparent years.So, to falsify the Benjamin Button Theory, you need to prove when the universe began that does not include counting years.I...I don't know if that counts as testable.

Not sure what 'counting years' means... the evidence comes from rates of decay of various isotopes, etc. But anyways, the BBT states that god created the universe, say 6000 years ago, but embedded in it all the same evidence that would be there if the world were billions of years old. The BBT universe is by definition indistinguishable from an really old universe, which is why BBT is unfalsifiable.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not sure what 'counting years' means... the evidence comes from rates of decay of various isotopes, etc. But anyways, the BBT states that god created the universe, say 6000 years ago, but embedded in it all the same evidence that would be there if the world were billions of years old. The BBT universe is by definition indistinguishable from an really old universe, which is why BBT is unfalsifiable.

So that's why you argue with me...you know I'm right because you can't find a hole in my theory?Freud would have a field day with you my friend.

[vbnautilus 48]

So that's why you argue with me...you know I'm right because you can't find a hole in my theory?Freud would have a field day with you my friend.

The only reason we know Freud was wrong about so many things is that (some of) his theories were testable.

[Balloon guy 158]

The only reason we know Freud was wrong about so many things is that (some of) his theories were testable.

That and we found where he flat out lied about the data.Of course he is also still taught in school.Hmmmmmm

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Not sure what 'counting years' means... the evidence comes from rates of decay of various isotopes, etc. But anyways, the BBT states that god created the universe, say 6000 years ago, but embedded in it all the same evidence that would be there if the world were billions of years old. The BBT universe is by definition indistinguishable from an really old universe, which is why BBT is unfalsifiable.

Counting years was supposed to mean whatever types of evidence you find to show age.Like the difference between meeting Benjamin and asking him how many birthdays he's had versus inspecting his birth certificate.I mean, I realize I'm just kind of flailing about here, but flailing can be fun too. That's "flailing." With an F-L.

[BaseJester 1]

Of course I cannot give convincing evidence to someone else what my subjective experience is. I know what I have seen, I know what I have experienced, and it was enough for me.

Perhaps this never really happened and Satan created your brain just exactly as if you had experienced it.

[Balloon guy 158]

The whole argument that something cannot be true unless it can be proven false reminds me of the original Star Trek where Spock tells a cyborg who is holding them hostage;" The next statement I say is true, I am lying"This of course sends the computer's mind into an endless loop to which Spock and Kirk escape while the 'head' of the cyborg smokes from an internal meltdown.Of course it sounds good to say only when we can prove something false, can it be true.But the problem is that if we prove it is actually false, didn't we therefore make it true? That's the criteria..it must be provable that it is false in order for it to be true.

[Balloon guy 158]

Perhaps this never really happened and Satan created your brain just exactly as if you had experienced it.

Which lends itself to the reality that satan is real...and by extension God.Right back where we started from.

[BaseJester 1]

Which lends itself to the reality that satan is real...and by extension God.

That's exactly what Satan wants you to think.

[Balloon guy 158]

That's exactly what Satan wants you to think.

You sure are intimate with the ways of satan...

[vbnautilus 48]

Counting years was supposed to mean whatever types of evidence you find to show age.Like the difference between meeting Benjamin and asking him how many birthdays he's had versus inspecting his birth certificate.I mean, I realize I'm just kind of flailing about here, but flailing can be fun too. That's "flailing." With an F-L.

But god has taken care of all that stuff, the birth certificate, witnesses, hospital records, etc.

The whole argument that something cannot be true unless it can be proven false

I... think you misunderstood something. "false" and "falsifiable" are not the same thing. We believe a theory when it can be proven false but isn't. We don't accept assertions that can under no circumstances ever be proven false (like BBT) - those are statements that cannot by nature be based on evidence.

[Balloon guy 158]

But god has taken care of all that stuff, the birth certificate, witnesses, hospital records, etc. I... think you misunderstood something. "false" and "falsifiable" are not the same thing. We believe a theory when it can be proven false but isn't. We don't accept assertions that can under no circumstances ever be proven false (like BBT) - those are statements that cannot by nature be based on evidence.

I cannot accept this premise unless you can prove to me that it can be proven false.When you can show me an example of how we can apply that statement to itself, then I will grant you the future usage of this self-contradictory statement

[vbnautilus 48]

I cannot accept this premise unless you can prove to me that it can be proven false.

The way you can prove it false is to show that scientists do in fact accept unfalsifiable theories.