ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.
is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?
also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???
And thank you hoobrus, and BA, for your drive by posting.And, thank you for yours.
Touche.
Seriously though, when you post links to videos or webpages of the Kent Hovind sort, and then
watch the rebuttal videos showing just how massively (and demonstratively) wrong many of his
specific claims are, what is your reaction?[inkling]
The only thing I posted was a link to the Creation Research Society.
ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.
is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?
also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???
http://www.creationresearch.orgAnd thank you hoobrus, and BA, for your drive by posting.
And, thank you for yours.
ok, so i have been watching a show on the discovery channel about noah and it got me thinking....let's say that the whole world was covered in a floor about 6000 years ago.
is it even possible to have the earth populate itself in just 6000 years?
also, and more interesting, how can all of the different breads of animals get to all of the contenants and repopulate themselves in that short amount of time as well???
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
Guy is too lazy to drag his stuff here, or even use his own words.
Most of what I have typed here have been my own words.
Why should i go there to see what is likely piffling dumpings;)
Please don't then.
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
3) And the biggest reason of all: creation does not reveal a moral, loving Creator behind it all. Good Grief! If a scientist made an alligator with ten foot legs, we'd say he was an evil nutcase but that's what "God" did with dinosaurs! And there's mosquitos and liver flukes and guinea worms and cancer and other horrors wonderfully made (!) to adapt to their surroundings! I guess you could say I believe in some sort of ID but not with a personal Creator.
Your reasoning assumes that things like cancer were a part of the original created world, and not due to the consequences of the fall. see for example "Did God make Pathogenic Viruses? etc. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3772/
How can non-creationists say for sure that cancer, parasites, suffering, and death, are bad when such things (acccording to most of them) were part of the processes that brought man into existence? Furthermore, how can they make judgements on what is moral when (according to them) their sense of morality is the product of an evolutionary process which selects soley on short-term survival value and not on moral value.
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
Of course it's scientific. The theory of evolution makes predictions. It is falsifiable.
The book "The Biotic Message" demonstrates from evolutionists themselves the unfalsifiable state that evolution now exists in. "The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science." http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
It is observable. Don't you remember the news article from this past summer where bacteria were observed gaining a new trait? Not merely adapting, but gaining the ability to metabolize citrate? Look it up. Further proof of evolution in the lab.
First of all, most of the "examples" of evolution in the lab (even "beneficial mutations") given have been shown to be actually de-evolutionary: see for example: "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm Instances of even claimed adaptation by information gain are a small subset of the rare"beneficial mutation" category. (Which is itself a very small subset of all mutations). Darwinism and the Deteroation of the Genome http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp As to the claim of bacteria "gaining the ability to metabolize citrate" as an example of "proof of evolution in the lab" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
So, evolution as "change in inherited traits over time" is scientfic,
evolution as an overarching ideology isn't?
"Change in inherited traits over time" is scientfic, however defining such change as "evolution" in the context of the evolution discussion/debate, and using this a proof of the "fact" of evolution, is frankly a trivial semantics only "victory".
In reality "change in inherited traits over time" is better defined as "what population genetics studies".
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
‘ … the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ 4Any biologist will agree that this is a problematic defintion to start from. "Evolution" is not a theory, darwinism, otoh, is, common descent is, etc. Evolution is an observed fact, defined by wikipedia as "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next". So, I'd like to see the context of this quote and the reason why the author uses this particular textbook (and not a dictionary, encyclopedia, general introductionary textbook) to build his critique on.I think that many biologists would consider the definition "… the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." as an accurate summary definition of what is meant by "evolution" in the context of creation-evolution discussions. It certainly parallels the overall version of history presented in textbooks and dedicated "evolution" books.
Furthermore, prominent evolutionists know full well that creation scientists accept the fact that "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next" occurrs, yet they still accuse these scientists of "rejecting evolution" since they don't accept the overall evolutionary version of history. Thus even evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is "really" it is much more than mere "change in the inheritedtraits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next".
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
No observational data?
it is wrong to assume that evolutionary mechanisms cannot be empirically observed.
Next time read the article more carefully. (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155) It is not saying that no type of "adaptation" has been observed but rather how such types of observed change really offer little support for the evolutionary version of history. Also see the article on fish adaptation in response to fishing here: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1267/
.
is evolution scientific ?.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155.
Is evolution scientific ?
