Oh come on Collin. I thought the play on words was quite good. Read the analogy again, the play on words is not important, I just thought it was helpful. There are 2 ways someone can die – one without an outside intelligent agent (murderer), and one with one. The forensic scientist will often have to determine which is responsible. Forensics are open to both possibilities. In origins science, naturalism is NOT open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes, it rules out intelligent causes without empirical foundation and imposes this on science. That’s what the analogy is about, it works.
You analogy is weird, friend.
Forensic science and biology (evolution) use the exact same method. They are both sciences built on the same principles. You claim forensic science is open to an intelligent cause, this is a wrong conclusion. You define intelligent agent in your analogy as human, a person is bound by natural laws, is part of nature itself. Intelligent agent is defined as supernatural in ID, not bound by natural laws, not a part of nature but above it. Forensic science does not allow supernatural explanations either.
If you believe in the ‘Big Bang’ then we agree that there was a ‘singularity’, a beginning. If you do not, then I guess you must be a ‘steady state theory’ man but I thought you were a little bit more mainstream than that.
The Big Bang theory has lots of things worked out, or so it seems. There are, however, things we know very very little about. The early universe is one of them. We're nowhere near answering the questions concerning the beginning of the universe, or whether there was a beginning.
Science has been defined. You just don't agree with the definition and you want to re-define it. Oddly enough, you repeatedly said the definitions should not be made by the opponents.
I thought you were better than retreating to this 'science has been defined' mantra. I actually dont think either definition of science should rule, both options should be legitimate. I think the scientific controversy over origins should be taught in schools so pupils can make up there own minds. Evolutionists are scared of a level playing field cos they know they might lose.
The evidence of ID has been addressed. You refuse to accept or believe it. There's really nothing more they can do. It's quite funny how you accuse the scientific community of not engaging with the evidence, yet fail to mention that ID barely has any evidence and mainly tries to gain power and influence through politics and propaganda videos. ID is 90% politics and popularizing.Let's be brave and indeed follow the evidence where it leads: evolution. Oh wait, this isn't about actually looking at the evidence or being brave for that matter, it's about wanting this view, regardless of proof or theory, to be accepted.
We havn't really discussed the evidence because you refuse to believe that there is any. If you admitted that ID has scientific evidence you would have to admit that it is science. Rather than engaging with evidence you have stuck with the 'ID is religion in disguise' tactic. I have demonstrated why this is untrue and you have ignored the evidence of this. You have stuck to your 'there is no discrimination in science against ID' line despite having a journal reviewer come on this thread and state that this discrimination exists. You have also repeatedly refused to watch the new film 'expelled' (about scientific discrimination against ID scientists) because you are afraid that it would shake your belief system. You cannot accept that 'real' scientists reject Darwinism and argue for design so its easier for you to dimiss them as 'creationists in disguise'. We both know that if they are in fact genuine, your worldview would be shaken so I dont think you want to believe they exist. I think its you who needs to be brave if you are realy interested in truth. Peace.
Well 150 years on, we still don’t have the ‘transitional fossils’. To illustrate this, consider this response, in 1979, to a letter to Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History]asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book on Evolution:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
This is one reason why Darwinism, which began as a credible scientific theory, is now anti-empirical, and supported only by naturalistic philosophy, which makes it ‘a fact’ regardless of empirical evidence. Peace.
The fact that ID does not deal with dinosaurs does not make it unscientific. ID is, at present a relativly narrow field, it is not trying to explain everything, it does not have to explain everything in order to be good science.
P.s Why is it ridiculous to think that dinosaurs were on the ark?
tim-bo... it DOES need to explain everything it's claiming to be true. it doesn't even come CLOSE to doing that. it's all fantasy. it's like sci-fi. just because it's captured your imagination, doesn't make it REAL.
that said, i can't believe this thread is still alive. this is possibly the most futile conversation ever on the boards. and i'm including the mt in that. talk about futile! this even beats those dumbass threads about abortion, how obama is really a baby-killing, unpatriotic muslim :rolleyes:, why nader is the best candidate for president :rolleyes: :rolleyes:, and of course all of the threads lo those many eons ago about terry schiavo.
useless.
you guys clearly have a higher tolerance for wasted time and energy than i do.
carry on.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Forensic science and biology (evolution) use the exact same method. They are both sciences built on the same principles. You claim forensic science is open to an intelligent cause, this is a wrong conclusion. You define intelligent agent in your analogy as human, a person is bound by natural laws, is part of nature itself. Intelligent agent is defined as supernatural in ID, not bound by natural laws, not a part of nature but above it. Forensic science does not allow supernatural explanations either.
IM NOT SAYING THE MURDERER IS SUPERNATURAL........ITS AN ANALOGY!!!!
Forget supernatural, think intelligent vs non-intelligent, old age has no intelligent input, an axe in the head requires an intellgent cause. Please try again, it DOES make sense.
I thought you were better tan retreating to this 'science has been defined' mantra. I actually dont think either definition of science should rule, both options should be legitimate. I think the scientific controversy over origins should be taught in schools so pupils can make up there own minds. Evolutionists are scared of a level playing field cos they know they might lose.
We havn't realy discussed the evidence because you refuse to believe that there is any. If you admitted that ID has scientific evidence you would have to admit that it is science. Rather than engaging with evidence you have stuck with the 'ID is religion in disguise' tactic. I have demonstrated why this is untrue and you have ignored the evidence of this. You have stuck to your 'there is no discrimination in science against ID' line despite having a journal reviewer come on this thread and state that this discrimination exists. You have also repeatedly refused to watch the new film 'expelled' (about scientific discrimination against ID scientists) because you are afraid that it would shake your belief system. You cannot accept that 'real' scientists reject Darwinism and argue for design so its easier for you to dimiss them as 'creationists in disguise'. We both know that if they are in fact genuine, your worldview would be shaken so I dont think you want to believe they exist. I think its you who needs to be brave if you are realy interested in truth. Peace.
Despite the fact that I'm exhausted I will still respond to this because you sort of pissed me off.
The evidence you have offered has been discussed here (you have links with the evidence, I gave links that refuted and disproved that ID evidence). The evidence ID has offered has been discussed by scientists as well.
Well, first of all... this is the internet, that reviewer could be anyone. I happen to know he is a christian, he could have an agenda. I have debated with him quite a few times and I don't think he was telling any lies, however, if you would re-read what I wrote, you'd see that I said it may exists but not like you'd want me to believe. I said I don't believe in a conspiracy against ID by elite atheists. That's how you put it.
I did not refuse to watch expelled because I was afraid it would shake my beliefs system. I didn't watch it because Ben Stein showed that he was dishonest.
Live as an example for other and fucking have fun doing it... that is what its all about... create your own reality... that is what PJ music means to me
Forget supernatural, think intelligent vs non-intelligent, old age has no intelligent input, an axe in the head requires an intellgent cause. Please try again, it DOES make sense.
It indeed only makes sense if you reduce the supernatural to the natural, or if you "forget about it". That's the whole point, you cannot make sense out of the supernatural because, by definition, we cannot. It is above us, above our knowledge, above our laws.
that said, i can't believe this thread is still alive. this is possibly the most futile conversation ever on the boards. and i'm including the mt in that. talk about futile! this even beats those dumbass threads about abortion, how obama is really a baby-killing, unpatriotic muslim :rolleyes:, why nader is the best candidate for president :rolleyes: :rolleyes:, and of course all of the threads lo those many eons ago about terry schiavo.
useless.
you guys clearly have a higher tolerance for wasted time and energy than i do.
The fact that ID does not deal with dinosaurs does not make it unscientific. ID is, at present a relativly narrow field, it is not trying to explain everything, it does not have to explain everything in order to be good science.
P.s Why is it ridiculous to think that dinosaurs were on the ark?
...
The origin of the planet and dinosaurs... are HUGE issues in nature. Science is about knowledge and those are issues that generate big questions. It is BAD science when it ignores questions.
...
Dinosaurs on the Ark? Not ridiculous? Really?
I think that the separation of the End of the Dinosaurs 65 Million Years ago and the first Neanderthals probably has something to do with it.
And given the nature of the predatory dinosaurs (sharp, pointed teeth to rip through flesh and binocular vision of a predator), the Ark would have been a floating buffet. Noah would have to be a fool to load a T.Rex on the same boat as his kids. And if the dinosaurs were left off of the Ark and all drowned in the flood... then, that means that Noah's adventure was 65 million years ago.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
And given the nature of the predatory dinosaurs (sharp, pointed teeth to rip through flesh and binocular vision of a predator), the Ark would have been a floating buffet. Noah would have to be a fool to load a T.Rex on the same boat as his kids.
I asked this question when I was a kid in Sunday School. The teacher told me God put them all in a deep coma like sleep so they didn't eat each other or need to defecate - yes I asked how they cleaned up all the poop. Even as a child, this answer seemed ridiculous. Almost fairy tale in nature.
And, by the way, Google the term "transitional fossils." The list of transitional fossils in existence is too fucking long to cut and paste. But maybe I will, because a wall of quoted text that obliterates the eyes is a sure way to prove I'm right!
It indeed only makes sense if you reduce the supernatural to the natural, or if you "forget about it". That's the whole point, you cannot make sense out of the supernatural because, by definition, we cannot. It is above us, above our knowledge, above our laws.
Ok. So now you get it. Forensics have to be open to both natural and non-natural causes for an incident like a death of a person. Now, what about origins science? If origins science is also to be open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes then it has to suspend methodological naturalism because an intelligent cause for life and the universe is BY DEFINITION 'supernatural'. That is why my analogy makes sense and that is why applying methodological naturalism to origins science is wrong. Science should serve the people by objectively investigating the questions that are important to them. Instead science has ruled out one of the only two possible answers to the biggest question of all 'Is there a creator?' and given its desired option: 'no' a win by default. This is not what science should be doing. Since most people in the world think that there is something intelligent behind the universe, scientists should at least consider it a possibility. At present they dont even give it a chance, any evidence produced as positive evidence for design is simply called 'psuedo-science' just because it breaks the bullshit rules of naturalism. Even worse, the sincere scientists whose research points out this evidence are ridiculed and slandered as religious zealots. If you were brave enough to watch the film 'expelled', you would see this to be true. But this is not over yet, it has just begun.
I asked this question when I was a kid in Sunday School. The teacher told me God put them all in a deep coma like sleep so they didn't eat each other or need to defecate - yes I asked how they cleaned up all the poop. Even as a child, this answer seemed ridiculous. Almost fairy tale in nature.
And, by the way, Google the term "transitional fossils." The list of transitional fossils in existence is too fucking long to cut and paste. But maybe I will, because a wall of quoted text that obliterates the eyes is a sure way to prove I'm right!
...
The thing that was sort of like a fish and sort of like a reptile? Yes, an evolutionary leap for water creatures (fish) that were forced to move onto land to survive (eat the billions of land insects).
Evolution is basically an arms race between predator and prey. There's a basic reason why hawk's eyes see forward and pidgeon's eyes see 360 degrees... hawks eat pidgeons.
...
Oh.. and if God can put them all in a deep coma... why didn't God just tell them all to migrate to the high ground? I mean, they couldn't cover that distance in the time it took Noah to build the Ark and gather up all of the species? How long did it take the lions to walk from Africa to Jordan?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
The thing that was sort of like a fish and sort of like a reptile? Yes, an evolutionary leap for water creatures (fish) that were forced to move onto land to survive (eat the billions of land insects).
Evolution is basically an arms race between predator and prey. There's a basic reason why hawk's eyes see forward and pidgeon's eyes see 360 degrees... hawks eat pidgeons.
...
Oh.. and if God can put them all in a deep coma... why didn't God just tell them all to migrate to the high ground? I mean, they couldn't cover that distance in the time it took Noah to build the Ark and gather up all of the species? How long did it take the lions to walk from Africa to Jordan?
eyes in the front of the head are able to judge distance. an absolute must for predators. though of course there are some(aquatic predators for instance) that this isnt applicable to for various reasons.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, first of all... this is the internet, that reviewer could be anyone. I happen to know he is a christian, he could have an agenda. I have debated with him quite a few times and I don't think he was telling any lies,
thanks Collin ...*goes back to reading the thread*
the only agenda I try to push in these discussions are 1. there is some level of prejudice to ID (not sure if it's a grand conspiracy or if it's intellectual arrogance or if it's mostly conjured up) and 2. Ones belief in origins of the universe should have no bearing on ones scientific abilities.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
No, writersu, I am not offended by your posts. You do not speak in an arrogant voice and you appear to be able to conjure and express your own thoughts.
Just twixt you and me, I do believe there is a God and in the teachings of Jesus - the rest of the Bible - especially the OT is a bit suspect to me (but that's a whole different thread!) I also believe in evolution. And to me, in my mind, in my heart, between me and my God - it makes sense. I figure if we were all supposed to think and believe in exactly the same manner, we would all have turned out as a batch of clones.
Faith is a unique and personal experience. I respect those who believe in a like mind and those who don't. My struggle lies in tolerating those who think they know exactly what God is all about or what Eddie means with each of his lyrics. Both are impossible as we are neither a deity or Eddie. Although, Eddie may be a deity - it's still up for debate
Sorry if you thought I was speaking harshly of you in my previous post. Peace my friend.
I am so glad, and I will count you as a friend as well...........
yes, you are right Eddie is a deity, like I said to my kids when I want to mess with them, "If Eddie Vedder's name was not Eddie Vedder he would be Ghandi". I love to mess with them ---most of them are teenagers so you can imagine the looks they give me.....so funny.....anyway......
it is so funny how we have spun for days in this Ed/God commment; we truly are guilty of the whole spin as much as the media can be and yet it has triggered us to be able to talk about this subject on a personal level as well.
I love to hear people tell me their thoughts; I have learned so much from a lot of people here and left the threads thinking a bit more enlightened and a bit more evolved as well. So when we do these talks I want to grow and learn from all here, or maybe I do leave with the same outlook as when I came in, but nonetheless, it is worthy of the time providing we respect the others' opinions and outlooks and not try to bully them into our thoughts or ridicule them for thinking different than we do.
I am glad that my true self came through for you and that you know that I respect all here, regardless if they agree with me.........I guess it's only when they want to challenge me as if to say my take is not valid (as I do not do to them) that I take offense. I want to be treated as I treat others and if I have it coming then they should rip me apart but if I don't then I do expect someone to be civil to me.
That is where my faith ultimately lies; in the faith that whether we credit God, Buddha, Mohammad, whatever peaceful a god we credit, then we need to be in a balance with the rest of the world so that we put out good for others and in the faith that we are good people inside, all of us, that we will get it back . The opposite is true as well.
The problem is when religion takes on the position of God Himself and makes the people within take the role of judge on.
Then we get screwed up on just who is God and who is not........(us).........
you know?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Seems we forget about the Old Testament side of the bible.
I'm stating this as an opinion and I'm not trying to put you or your belief down, but one only needs to read Leviticus 26 or maybe begin at Deuteronomy 28:15 or the whole passage of Numbers 31. I find it interesting how christians often pick and choose only the parts of the bible they like and ignore the other side of it.
I am so glad you pointed that out. Because you know, I still struggle with the image of God, my own personal image of Him, that is. For instance, is He the Old Testament God, the fire and wrath and "I will get you , you sinners!!" God because if He is then surely all of the shit I have had in my life has been well deserved and although I will still respect and revere Him, then I can't really say I trust Him because He is judging me harshly and if I am not worthy of His love, due to His personal punishments, then I cannot follow Him----I will never be good enough.
Or is He the "Santa Claus"God, (which truly I did think of that way---before the single really--but more like, "Ok, ask for ANYTHING you want and I will give it to you.........but He is not giving me what I want, so why?? Am I really that bad that MY prayers are unheard?
Or is He my version of the image of the "Jesus Christ Superstar" Jesus, who is laid back, loving and says, "No, man it's cool, really. I love you despite yourself. Just keep trying to get it right. You will."
See, depending on where I am emotionally in my life all has been true.
So, in order for me to have the perspective of respect for this God that I choose to feel is true, then I need to take all in account, hoping that there is a huge answer as to why my life turns and twists as it does, pray I learn from it all and keep in my heart the last image of Jesus I stated, so I too will develop into someone worthy of respect; one who is loving as well as disciplined.
I am accountable for my sins, faults, mess ups and either I will cause my own punishment in respect to a karma type thing or God will allow the bad to come to me due to my own poor judgement. Sometimes people get a lot of bad and in no way do I feel they deserve it on any level as I will never be able to explain the horrors that are in the world that are living realities to some.........I mourn for them; truly I do.........
but I have to believe that regardless of the force that is driving this world and these things to occur, that there is a greater good that will somehow come of it...........(like that boy who got killed so many years ago, that boy Adam Walsh, and although nothing will ever justify or replace him to his parents, look all his father did for child safety, as well as criminals being caught).
If I don't have a hope in something, then I will become an animal as any of us can become and live merely by my primal instincts as well as primal hungers; only living for me. I do not think all non believers are this way; I am saying that in myself I acknowledge this..............so I choose to believe.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
The problem is when religion takes on the position of God Himself and makes the people within take the role of judge on.
Then we get screwed up on just who is God and who is not........(us).........
you know?
Quoted For Truth!!!
When you strip away all the "crap" about who made what and how or when this was created and let me quote you this religious authority or scientific paper blah blah blah - I mean wasn't this whole God thing supposed to be about love?
It seems like we get so bogged down in the bullshit that we lose touch with the ultimate reality. It doesn't matter what you believe or if you believe anything at all - love is the baseline emotion that we all crave. Atheists, agnostics and yes even right wing Christian zealots (lol) understand the concept of love.
Does it really matter how we got here? If we came swinging down from the trees - banana in hand, or if we came from a mixture of some dudes rib and dirt from the ground - our main purpose while on this Earth is to love.
I don't know - it's late, I'm sleepy and it's time for the Colbert Report. Sleep tight all!
Please come back if you have something slightly intelligent or, at least respectful to say.
um, i don't need your invitation to comment here, even if my comments make you look ridiculous- which is fitting, considering the subject.
ID doesn't DESERVE respect, plain & simple. it's a pseudoscience and a fantasy dreamt up by ultra-religious weirdos who can't- WON'T- acccept that they evolved- GASP!- from other primates. newsflash: we ARE primates. even GOD would have to fess up to that. :rolleyes:
how about YOU find some respect for SCIENCE?? and while you're at it, get some friends. apparently, you need some, if you feel betrayed by a rock star because you feel he's drifted away from christ... good grief! isn't there a bible study group somewhere with an empty chair?
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
eyes in the front of the head are able to judge distance. an absolute must for predators. though of course there are some(aquatic predators for instance) that this isnt applicable to for various reasons.
...
I agree... Like sharks that rely on their sense of smell to locate prey (the eyes are needed to scan a wide expanse of open ocean). Some reptiles and amphibians have moved their eyes to the top of the head because they are 'ambush' type predators, but they still focus on their prey using binocular vision.
All of this has transformed over the millions of years of evolution as different species sought survival in the wild.
And even us humans... we have remnants of a tail. If all species were created in tact... why does a human being (who walks upright) need a tail?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Ok. So now you get it. Forensics have to be open to both natural and non-natural causes for an incident like a death of a person. Now, what about origins science? If origins science is also to be open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes then it has to suspend methodological naturalism because an intelligent cause for life and the universe is BY DEFINITION 'supernatural'. That is why my analogy makes sense and that is why applying methodological naturalism to origins science is wrong. Science should serve the people by objectively investigating the questions that are important to them. Instead science has ruled out one of the only two possible answers to the biggest question of all 'Is there a creator?' and given its desired option: 'no' a win by default. This is not what science should be doing. Since most people in the world think that there is something intelligent behind the universe, scientists should at least consider it a possibility. At present they dont even give it a chance, any evidence produced as positive evidence for design is simply called 'psuedo-science' just because it breaks the bullshit rules of naturalism. Even worse, the sincere scientists whose research points out this evidence are ridiculed and slandered as religious zealots. If you were brave enough to watch the film 'expelled', you would see this to be true. But this is not over yet, it has just begun.
Hey Tim,........and all who read this........
I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......
Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.
And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.
And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............
where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......
just a thought............
what do you think?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Ok. So now you get it. Forensics have to be open to both natural and non-natural causes for an incident like a death of a person. Now, what about origins science? If origins science is also to be open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes then it has to suspend methodological naturalism because an intelligent cause for life and the universe is BY DEFINITION 'supernatural'. That is why my analogy makes sense and that is why applying methodological naturalism to origins science is wrong. Science should serve the people by objectively investigating the questions that are important to them. Instead science has ruled out one of the only two possible answers to the biggest question of all 'Is there a creator?' and given its desired option: 'no' a win by default. This is not what science should be doing. Since most people in the world think that there is something intelligent behind the universe, scientists should at least consider it a possibility. At present they dont even give it a chance, any evidence produced as positive evidence for design is simply called 'psuedo-science' just because it breaks the bullshit rules of naturalism. Even worse, the sincere scientists whose research points out this evidence are ridiculed and slandered as religious zealots. If you were brave enough to watch the film 'expelled', you would see this to be true. But this is not over yet, it has just begun.
Hey Tim,........and all who read this........
I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......
Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.
And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.
And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............
where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......
just a thought............
what do you think?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
um, i don't need your invitation to comment here, even if my comments make you look ridiculous- which is fitting.........ID doesn't DESERVE respect, plain & simple. it's a pseudoscience and a fantasy dreamt up by ultra-religious weirdos......how about YOU find some respect for SCIENCE?? and while you're at it, get some friends. apparently, you need some, if you feel betrayed by a rock star because you feel he's drifted away from christ... good grief! isn't there a bible study group somewhere with an empty chair?
Why are you here? You said that the subject doesn't interest you. If you are here to try and get me to spit venom by insulting me then you have failed. You say your comments make me look ridiculous, hmmm well I hope you are proud. However, most of us are not here to ridicule eachother. Again, if you have nothing but insults and ridicule, please find somewhere else to vent your venom, go in peace.
I asked this question when I was a kid in Sunday School. The teacher told me God put them all in a deep coma like sleep so they didn't eat each other or need to defecate - yes I asked how they cleaned up all the poop. Even as a child, this answer seemed ridiculous. Almost fairy tale in nature.
Oh.. and if God can put them all in a deep coma... why didn't God just tell them all to migrate to the high ground? I mean, they couldn't cover that distance in the time it took Noah to build the Ark and gather up all of the species? How long did it take the lions to walk from Africa to Jordan?
Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.
However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.
You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere.
Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’.
Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation.
Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Although some of the fossils of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. are HUGE, these are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:
Comments
You analogy is weird, friend.
Forensic science and biology (evolution) use the exact same method. They are both sciences built on the same principles. You claim forensic science is open to an intelligent cause, this is a wrong conclusion. You define intelligent agent in your analogy as human, a person is bound by natural laws, is part of nature itself. Intelligent agent is defined as supernatural in ID, not bound by natural laws, not a part of nature but above it. Forensic science does not allow supernatural explanations either.
The Big Bang theory has lots of things worked out, or so it seems. There are, however, things we know very very little about. The early universe is one of them. We're nowhere near answering the questions concerning the beginning of the universe, or whether there was a beginning.
naděje umírá poslední
I thought you were better than retreating to this 'science has been defined' mantra. I actually dont think either definition of science should rule, both options should be legitimate. I think the scientific controversy over origins should be taught in schools so pupils can make up there own minds. Evolutionists are scared of a level playing field cos they know they might lose.
We havn't really discussed the evidence because you refuse to believe that there is any. If you admitted that ID has scientific evidence you would have to admit that it is science. Rather than engaging with evidence you have stuck with the 'ID is religion in disguise' tactic. I have demonstrated why this is untrue and you have ignored the evidence of this. You have stuck to your 'there is no discrimination in science against ID' line despite having a journal reviewer come on this thread and state that this discrimination exists. You have also repeatedly refused to watch the new film 'expelled' (about scientific discrimination against ID scientists) because you are afraid that it would shake your belief system. You cannot accept that 'real' scientists reject Darwinism and argue for design so its easier for you to dimiss them as 'creationists in disguise'. We both know that if they are in fact genuine, your worldview would be shaken so I dont think you want to believe they exist. I think its you who needs to be brave if you are realy interested in truth. Peace.
Thanks.
I will only address this part now because I'm tired. Please read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
naděje umírá poslední
tim-bo... it DOES need to explain everything it's claiming to be true. it doesn't even come CLOSE to doing that. it's all fantasy. it's like sci-fi. just because it's captured your imagination, doesn't make it REAL.
that said, i can't believe this thread is still alive. this is possibly the most futile conversation ever on the boards. and i'm including the mt in that. talk about futile! this even beats those dumbass threads about abortion, how obama is really a baby-killing, unpatriotic muslim :rolleyes:, why nader is the best candidate for president :rolleyes: :rolleyes:, and of course all of the threads lo those many eons ago about terry schiavo.
useless.
you guys clearly have a higher tolerance for wasted time and energy than i do.
carry on.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"WAHHHH!! WAHHHHHH!! The smart people are picking on me!!!!"
sorry, i couldn't resist that one.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
IM NOT SAYING THE MURDERER IS SUPERNATURAL........ITS AN ANALOGY!!!!
Forget supernatural, think intelligent vs non-intelligent, old age has no intelligent input, an axe in the head requires an intellgent cause. Please try again, it DOES make sense.
Despite the fact that I'm exhausted I will still respond to this because you sort of pissed me off.
The evidence you have offered has been discussed here (you have links with the evidence, I gave links that refuted and disproved that ID evidence). The evidence ID has offered has been discussed by scientists as well.
Well, first of all... this is the internet, that reviewer could be anyone. I happen to know he is a christian, he could have an agenda. I have debated with him quite a few times and I don't think he was telling any lies, however, if you would re-read what I wrote, you'd see that I said it may exists but not like you'd want me to believe. I said I don't believe in a conspiracy against ID by elite atheists. That's how you put it.
I did not refuse to watch expelled because I was afraid it would shake my beliefs system. I didn't watch it because Ben Stein showed that he was dishonest.
naděje umírá poslední
Please come back if you have something slightly intelligent or, at least respectful to say.
It indeed only makes sense if you reduce the supernatural to the natural, or if you "forget about it". That's the whole point, you cannot make sense out of the supernatural because, by definition, we cannot. It is above us, above our knowledge, above our laws.
naděje umírá poslední
What are you still doing here?
naděje umírá poslední
The origin of the planet and dinosaurs... are HUGE issues in nature. Science is about knowledge and those are issues that generate big questions. It is BAD science when it ignores questions.
...
Dinosaurs on the Ark? Not ridiculous? Really?
I think that the separation of the End of the Dinosaurs 65 Million Years ago and the first Neanderthals probably has something to do with it.
And given the nature of the predatory dinosaurs (sharp, pointed teeth to rip through flesh and binocular vision of a predator), the Ark would have been a floating buffet. Noah would have to be a fool to load a T.Rex on the same boat as his kids. And if the dinosaurs were left off of the Ark and all drowned in the flood... then, that means that Noah's adventure was 65 million years ago.
Hail, Hail!!!
So?
edit: Oh wait, did you mean in a biblical sense?
naděje umírá poslední
I asked this question when I was a kid in Sunday School. The teacher told me God put them all in a deep coma like sleep so they didn't eat each other or need to defecate - yes I asked how they cleaned up all the poop. Even as a child, this answer seemed ridiculous. Almost fairy tale in nature.
And, by the way, Google the term "transitional fossils." The list of transitional fossils in existence is too fucking long to cut and paste. But maybe I will, because a wall of quoted text that obliterates the eyes is a sure way to prove I'm right!
Ok. So now you get it. Forensics have to be open to both natural and non-natural causes for an incident like a death of a person. Now, what about origins science? If origins science is also to be open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes then it has to suspend methodological naturalism because an intelligent cause for life and the universe is BY DEFINITION 'supernatural'. That is why my analogy makes sense and that is why applying methodological naturalism to origins science is wrong. Science should serve the people by objectively investigating the questions that are important to them. Instead science has ruled out one of the only two possible answers to the biggest question of all 'Is there a creator?' and given its desired option: 'no' a win by default. This is not what science should be doing. Since most people in the world think that there is something intelligent behind the universe, scientists should at least consider it a possibility. At present they dont even give it a chance, any evidence produced as positive evidence for design is simply called 'psuedo-science' just because it breaks the bullshit rules of naturalism. Even worse, the sincere scientists whose research points out this evidence are ridiculed and slandered as religious zealots. If you were brave enough to watch the film 'expelled', you would see this to be true. But this is not over yet, it has just begun.
The thing that was sort of like a fish and sort of like a reptile? Yes, an evolutionary leap for water creatures (fish) that were forced to move onto land to survive (eat the billions of land insects).
Evolution is basically an arms race between predator and prey. There's a basic reason why hawk's eyes see forward and pidgeon's eyes see 360 degrees... hawks eat pidgeons.
...
Oh.. and if God can put them all in a deep coma... why didn't God just tell them all to migrate to the high ground? I mean, they couldn't cover that distance in the time it took Noah to build the Ark and gather up all of the species? How long did it take the lions to walk from Africa to Jordan?
Hail, Hail!!!
eyes in the front of the head are able to judge distance. an absolute must for predators. though of course there are some(aquatic predators for instance) that this isnt applicable to for various reasons.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
thanks Collin
the only agenda I try to push in these discussions are 1. there is some level of prejudice to ID (not sure if it's a grand conspiracy or if it's intellectual arrogance or if it's mostly conjured up) and 2. Ones belief in origins of the universe should have no bearing on ones scientific abilities.
I am so glad, and I will count you as a friend as well...........
yes, you are right Eddie is a deity, like I said to my kids when I want to mess with them, "If Eddie Vedder's name was not Eddie Vedder he would be Ghandi". I love to mess with them ---most of them are teenagers so you can imagine the looks they give me.....so funny.....anyway......
it is so funny how we have spun for days in this Ed/God commment; we truly are guilty of the whole spin as much as the media can be and yet it has triggered us to be able to talk about this subject on a personal level as well.
I love to hear people tell me their thoughts; I have learned so much from a lot of people here and left the threads thinking a bit more enlightened and a bit more evolved as well. So when we do these talks I want to grow and learn from all here, or maybe I do leave with the same outlook as when I came in, but nonetheless, it is worthy of the time providing we respect the others' opinions and outlooks and not try to bully them into our thoughts or ridicule them for thinking different than we do.
I am glad that my true self came through for you and that you know that I respect all here, regardless if they agree with me.........I guess it's only when they want to challenge me as if to say my take is not valid (as I do not do to them) that I take offense. I want to be treated as I treat others and if I have it coming then they should rip me apart but if I don't then I do expect someone to be civil to me.
That is where my faith ultimately lies; in the faith that whether we credit God, Buddha, Mohammad, whatever peaceful a god we credit, then we need to be in a balance with the rest of the world so that we put out good for others and in the faith that we are good people inside, all of us, that we will get it back . The opposite is true as well.
The problem is when religion takes on the position of God Himself and makes the people within take the role of judge on.
Then we get screwed up on just who is God and who is not........(us).........
you know?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I am so glad you pointed that out. Because you know, I still struggle with the image of God, my own personal image of Him, that is. For instance, is He the Old Testament God, the fire and wrath and "I will get you , you sinners!!" God because if He is then surely all of the shit I have had in my life has been well deserved and although I will still respect and revere Him, then I can't really say I trust Him because He is judging me harshly and if I am not worthy of His love, due to His personal punishments, then I cannot follow Him----I will never be good enough.
Or is He the "Santa Claus"God, (which truly I did think of that way---before the single really--but more like, "Ok, ask for ANYTHING you want and I will give it to you.........but He is not giving me what I want, so why?? Am I really that bad that MY prayers are unheard?
Or is He my version of the image of the "Jesus Christ Superstar" Jesus, who is laid back, loving and says, "No, man it's cool, really. I love you despite yourself. Just keep trying to get it right. You will."
See, depending on where I am emotionally in my life all has been true.
So, in order for me to have the perspective of respect for this God that I choose to feel is true, then I need to take all in account, hoping that there is a huge answer as to why my life turns and twists as it does, pray I learn from it all and keep in my heart the last image of Jesus I stated, so I too will develop into someone worthy of respect; one who is loving as well as disciplined.
I am accountable for my sins, faults, mess ups and either I will cause my own punishment in respect to a karma type thing or God will allow the bad to come to me due to my own poor judgement. Sometimes people get a lot of bad and in no way do I feel they deserve it on any level as I will never be able to explain the horrors that are in the world that are living realities to some.........I mourn for them; truly I do.........
but I have to believe that regardless of the force that is driving this world and these things to occur, that there is a greater good that will somehow come of it...........(like that boy who got killed so many years ago, that boy Adam Walsh, and although nothing will ever justify or replace him to his parents, look all his father did for child safety, as well as criminals being caught).
If I don't have a hope in something, then I will become an animal as any of us can become and live merely by my primal instincts as well as primal hungers; only living for me. I do not think all non believers are this way; I am saying that in myself I acknowledge this..............so I choose to believe.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Quoted For Truth!!!
When you strip away all the "crap" about who made what and how or when this was created and let me quote you this religious authority or scientific paper blah blah blah - I mean wasn't this whole God thing supposed to be about love?
It seems like we get so bogged down in the bullshit that we lose touch with the ultimate reality. It doesn't matter what you believe or if you believe anything at all - love is the baseline emotion that we all crave. Atheists, agnostics and yes even right wing Christian zealots (lol) understand the concept of love.
Does it really matter how we got here? If we came swinging down from the trees - banana in hand, or if we came from a mixture of some dudes rib and dirt from the ground - our main purpose while on this Earth is to love.
I don't know - it's late, I'm sleepy and it's time for the Colbert Report. Sleep tight all!
um, i don't need your invitation to comment here, even if my comments make you look ridiculous- which is fitting, considering the subject.
ID doesn't DESERVE respect, plain & simple. it's a pseudoscience and a fantasy dreamt up by ultra-religious weirdos who can't- WON'T- acccept that they evolved- GASP!- from other primates. newsflash: we ARE primates. even GOD would have to fess up to that. :rolleyes:
how about YOU find some respect for SCIENCE?? and while you're at it, get some friends. apparently, you need some, if you feel betrayed by a rock star because you feel he's drifted away from christ... good grief! isn't there a bible study group somewhere with an empty chair?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I agree... Like sharks that rely on their sense of smell to locate prey (the eyes are needed to scan a wide expanse of open ocean). Some reptiles and amphibians have moved their eyes to the top of the head because they are 'ambush' type predators, but they still focus on their prey using binocular vision.
All of this has transformed over the millions of years of evolution as different species sought survival in the wild.
And even us humans... we have remnants of a tail. If all species were created in tact... why does a human being (who walks upright) need a tail?
Hail, Hail!!!
Hey Tim,........and all who read this........
I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......
Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.
And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.
And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............
where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......
just a thought............
what do you think?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Hey Tim,........and all who read this........
I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......
Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.
And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.
And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............
where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......
just a thought............
what do you think?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Why are you here? You said that the subject doesn't interest you. If you are here to try and get me to spit venom by insulting me then you have failed. You say your comments make me look ridiculous, hmmm well I hope you are proud. However, most of us are not here to ridicule eachother. Again, if you have nothing but insults and ridicule, please find somewhere else to vent your venom, go in peace.
God Bless
Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.
However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.
You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere.
Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’.
Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation.
Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Although some of the fossils of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. are HUGE, these are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/