Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…257258260262263…822

Comments

  • Options
    #7772
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, again you need to re-read the sequence of events. God made the animals subject to us before man sinned. When man fell, all that he had suffered witn him.

    That's the omniscient God, though, isn't it?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, I need you to define what a "kind" is ....
    I already did so. Seems you want to remain blind to that also.

    While it's easy to say that a 'kind' is "similar animals, thought to be descended from one original type", such a definition is essentially meaningless. Too loose, too unspecific to either test or use. You and JC could come to completely different ideas of what 'kind' an otter might be, and there would be no way whatsoever of resolving which one of you is right - a feature of a "definition" that has no real meaning.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #7773
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Why do the majority of a society support the rule of law (most of the time)? Because it suits them. Most are vunerable to the threats anarchy would bring.

    Does this mean man is not naturally evil? Of coursre not, just that he is naturally interested in his own survival (and rightly so). The proof of his naturally evil nature lies in what he would do if he could avoid punishment. Would he then be as keen to submit himself to the law? Or would he take the opportunity to be the law?

    Nearly everyone regularly has opportunities to commit crime and avoid punishment - nearly everyone fails to take them. In general, if they do take them, it is with a lot of rationalisation ("it doesn't hurt anyone", "no-one would miss a bit of it", "everyone does it"). People return wallets, fail to abuse those in their care, and so on, without any fear of punishment.

    Still, that's a reasonable alternative hypothesis (and popular amongst conservatives). I'll see if I can think up a test case which points one way or the other (almost certainly games theory experiments) - perhaps you could do the same?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #7774
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    You seem to be getting a bit confused with your own theory.

    According to Biblical Creationists all life on Earth is derived from a handful of kind species (2 of each species, male and female) that were on the Ark.
    As I said, that is in the thousands, not single digits.
    Define the characteristics of each of these original kind species. For example JC claims that weasles and dogs all came from the same kind. So therefore define the characteristics of this original species.
    One can't be sure where the kind boundaries are - just as when one comes to define species.
    Even better, produce a fossil of it.
    One could choose any horse-like fossil and say it is the horse/zebra ancestor from the Ark. But is it? No way of telling. The fossils are obviously nearer the original than what we have today - but they might also be of a kind now extinct rather than a species now extinct.
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I can say that the common ancestor of the horse and zebra looked basically like them, not like a lion.

    How exactly can you say that? Define "looked like" in a bit more detail. What are where the structural characteristics of this original "horse-zebra" kind.
    Maybe some cave drawings will emerge? Or do you want me to use my imagination like the evolution experts who gave us the portrait of the Brontosaurus:
    The finds — the largest dinosaur ever discovered at the time and nearly complete, lacking only a head, feet, and portions of the tail — were then prepared for what was to be the first ever mounted display of a sauropod skeleton, at Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History in 1905. The missing bones were created using known pieces from close relatives of Brontosaurus. Sauropod feet that were discovered at the same quarry were added, as well as a tail fashioned to appear as Marsh believed it should and what he felt was the correct skull for the massive creature. This was not a delicate Diplodocus-style skull (which would later turn out to be more accurate), but instead, a composite composed of "the biggest, thickest, strongest skull bones, lower jaws and tooth crowns from three different quarries", primarily those of Camarasaurus, the only other sauropod for which good skull material was known at the time. This method of reconstructing incomplete skeletons based on the more complete remains of related dinosaurs continues in museum mounts and life restorations to this day. From the Wiki article on Brontosaurus.
    Handful relative to the hundreds of thousands of species we find today (and finding even more each year).
    The limit on kinds is that of space on the Ark. We can ignore the insects, as needing little space. And the water-living kinds. So it's the rest we are thinking of.

    Today's figures (depending on definition of species)
    Reptiles: 7,984 species
    Amphibians: 5,900 species
    Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
    Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
    http://animals.about.com:80/b/2007/08/13/wild-friday-an-animals-and-wildlife-quiz.htm

    How many of these kinds could have been on the Ark? Possibly around 8000: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp
    Not a big leap to get what we have today.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v...speciation.asp

    That doesn't actually answer the question I put forward.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Has it stopped? http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...speciation.asp



    Neither does that.

    Perhaps it would be easier if you explained it to me directly
    We seem to have hit a communication gap again, as we did over models.
    I'm still waiting your demonstration of that so that I can know what it is exactly that you want. Maybe you can demonstrate here too what it is you require.


  • Options
    #7775
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scofflaw
    Worth a read - quite a balanced article on Creationist geologists. I expect, of course, some less than balanced comments.
    I think that it is quite a balanced article that gives a fair picture of Creation Geology in the US today.

    I recently attended a Creation Science event and I detected a sense that Creation Science has ‘come of age’ and it is now a well founded and confident scientific discipline with many leading scientists and young graduates joining it’s ranks.:D:)


    Scofflaw
    random variation + selection = evolution

    Doesn't matter what system you apply it to, or whether the selection process is intelligently designed or not - you still get evolution.

    Random variation will ALWAYS result in deleterious effects……..what we ACTUALLY observe is intelligently designed tightly specified variation ….

    ...something like randomly whacking your car with a hammer will always result in deleterious effects .......while intelligently controlling the hammer can produce tightly specified new useful features on the car !!!:D


    Wicknight
    replicating units + variation + selection = Darwinian evolution of replicating units

    If that is how you define Darwinian Evolution, then I accept that it occurs within Kinds and using pre-existing (i.e. originally created) genetic diversity……but please note that such a process is incapable of ‘evolving’ Pondslime into Man….

    …….it can produce different VARIETIES of Man, of Cats, of Dogs, etc……but it is INCAPABLE of generating the massive quantities of tightly specified functional information observed in living things!!!:eek:


    Wicknight
    I find it highly amusing that JC claims all life on Earth adapts and changes due to variation in the genetic replication of the life form, but refuses to call that "evolution" He claims it doesn't use mutation and therefore isn't evolution.

    I have no problem calling such variation and genetic drift amongst populations ‘evolution’…if you wish me to…..
    …..however, such ‘micro-evolution’ uses pre-existing (originally created) genetic variation …and it is accepted by Creation Scientists as scientifically valid!!!:D


    Wicknight
    he seems ignorant of the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't have to use mutation. Any change in the genetic code facilitates evolution, it is simply that mutation is the most dramatic. But if a black woman and a white man produce a "mixed race" (hate that term) skinned baby, that is as much evolution as a mutation

    This is an example of sexual recombination using the pre-existing genetic heritage of Mankind!!!

    The differentiation of genetic information during sexual reproduction DOES produce traits that are “new and (often) beneficial”…..but these mechanisms work by ‘leveraging’ the existing genetic information ‘platform’ of the organisms concerned……and they are NOT the mythical ‘macro-Evolutionary processes’ that supposedly changed Pondscum into Man……and which Materialists often dream about!!!!:D:)


    Wicknight
    As someone else pointed out JC (and one assumes by proxy Wolfsbane) is an evolutionists in all but name, since his theories of a handful of "kinds" turning into hundreds of thousands of species requires evolution to take place on a massive massive scale in a ridiculously short period of time.

    I used to be a fully fledged macro-Evolutionist (in name and in deed)……but now I am a Creation Scientist who accepts ‘micro-Evolution’ within Created Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity.

    …..and with all this new-found common ground between Creationists and Evolutionists, I wonder can we look forward to the day when a leading Evolutionist will present the ‘Darwin Medal for Baraminology’ to a promising young Creation Scientist…….indeed perhaps might they even be willing to sponsor a Baraminology scholarship as a prize??!!!:confused::D


  • Options
    #7776
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    One can't be sure where the kind boundaries are - just as when one comes to define species.

    Mmm...no. The vast majority of species are well-defined, and there are a handful of interesting exceptions. I don't think there's any 'kind' which is well-defined at all.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Maybe some cave drawings will emerge? Or do you want me to use my imagination like the evolution experts who gave us the portrait of the Brontosaurus:
    The finds — the largest dinosaur ever discovered at the time and nearly complete, lacking only a head, feet, and portions of the tail — were then prepared for what was to be the first ever mounted display of a sauropod skeleton, at Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History in 1905. The missing bones were created using known pieces from close relatives of Brontosaurus. Sauropod feet that were discovered at the same quarry were added, as well as a tail fashioned to appear as Marsh believed it should and what he felt was the correct skull for the massive creature. This was not a delicate Diplodocus-style skull (which would later turn out to be more accurate), but instead, a composite composed of "the biggest, thickest, strongest skull bones, lower jaws and tooth crowns from three different quarries", primarily those of Camarasaurus, the only other sauropod for which good skull material was known at the time. This method of reconstructing incomplete skeletons based on the more complete remains of related dinosaurs continues in museum mounts and life restorations to this day. From the Wiki article on Brontosaurus.

    And who knew? They were pretty bad at it 100 years ago. Wonders will never cease - any more than Creationists will cease highlighting out of date science and hoaxes.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The limit on kinds is that of space on the Ark. We can ignore the insects, as needing little space.

    Not really. There are incomparably more species of insect than almost anything else, and a huge diversity of them. In aggregate they would take up a very large amount of space.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    And the water-living kinds.

    That suggests that salt and fresh water remained magically unmixed during the Flood, since the vast majority of water-living organisms die in the wrong kind of water.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So it's the rest we are thinking of.

    Today's figures (depending on definition of species)
    Reptiles: 7,984 species
    Amphibians: 5,900 species
    Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
    Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
    http://animals.about.com:80/b/2007/08/13/wild-friday-an-animals-and-wildlife-quiz.htm

    How many of these kinds could have been on the Ark? Possibly around 8000: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp
    Not a big leap to get what we have today.

    I see you've also left out all the plants, fungi, and micro-organisms. No matter, I suppose, since most of them don't show up so well on a poster.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7777
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Why did God bother with Noah and his ark anyway? Why not use his magical powers to kill all but two of every creature? Why the elaborate flooding? Seems to be a bit of a blunt tool for a being of such power...


  • Options
    #7778
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As I said, that is in the thousands, not single digits.
    By handful I mean a few thousand rather than a few hundred thousand.

    I'm not really following why that matters though.

    You guys are after all the ones claiming that there is over whelming evidence that supports the idea that all life on Earth evolved from a few thousand species that emerged from the Ark.

    Yet you seem to have no clue what these species were like or what modern species evolved from what, beyond rather ridiculous barn-yard matching that children do in primary school (the cow looks like the horse, the duck looks like the chicken)
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    One can't be sure where the kind boundaries are - just as when one comes to define species.

    No, actually as Scofflaw points out species, modern day ones and ones in discovered in the fossil record, are pretty well defined.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    One could choose any horse-like fossil and say it is the horse/zebra ancestor from the Ark. But is it? No way of telling.

    What do you mean there is no way of telling??

    You are using the existence of these original Ark species as evidence of the Biblical Flood. Yet now you are telling me that you actually have no idea what these original species were?

    Am I following that correctly?

    One what grounds do you claim they existed?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The fossils are obviously nearer the original than what we have today
    Why is that "obvious"?

    Its only obvious if you assume these species actually existed. If they didn't exist then the fossils could be from hundreds of thousands of years ago.

    Are you following the point I'm making. What evidence is there that these original species existed AT ALL?

    (and please don't link to some article that ends up not answer the question. I want you to answer the question)
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    - but they might also be of a kind now extinct rather than a species now extinct.

    They "might" be anything Wolfsbane. They might be species from millions of years ago.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Maybe some cave drawings will emerge?
    Maybe some cave drawings will emerge? What are you talking about.

    How have Creationists formed what you claim is a scientific theory of the evolution of all life from the Ark without any evidence that these original species even existed?

    Are you actually basing this on anything other than the Bible?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The limit on kinds is that of space on the Ark. We can ignore the insects, as needing little space.

    You can't ignore insects as most species need a lot of space because insects have short life spans and require colonies to continue and breed. A single pair of insects would not have lasted the year in the Ark. There are also a hundred thousand species of insect.

    Secondly that is reverse deduction. Find the species first, then see if they would all fit on the Ark. This evidence then supports the idea of the Ark.

    You can't do it the other way around, look at the Bible and say the Ark was this big so only X amount of species were on it and then take that as a given and stop looking. That isn't science.

    Have you found any fossils of any of the species that were supposed to have been on the Ark?

    If you count them up how many do you have?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    And the water-living kinds.
    Again as Scofflaw points out that doesn't hold.

    If you want to try that out buy a fresh water Goldfish and throw him in the Ocean. See how long he lasts.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Today's figures (depending on definition of species)
    Reptiles: 7,984 species
    Amphibians: 5,900 species
    Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
    Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
    http://animals.about.com:80/b/2007/08/13/wild-friday-an-animals-and-wildlife-quiz.htm

    How many of these kinds could have been on the Ark? Possibly around 8000: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp
    Not a big leap to get what we have today.

    What do you mean "not a big leap"

    You are talking about what evolutionary biologists say took about 200 million years happening in a few hundred years of "adaptation" as Creationists call it.

    How is that "not a big leap"

    wolfsbane wrote: »
    We seem to have hit a communication gap again, as we did over models.
    I'm still waiting your demonstration of that so that I can know what it is exactly that you want. Maybe you can demonstrate here too what it is you require.

    Ok fair enough

    Take the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution.

    In that model you have self replicating units. On earth these units are obviously lifeforms. We replicate ourselves, through a very complicated process of exchanging genetic material. If the replication was exactly the same one would simply get exact copies each time. The original replicating molecules would never have developed into anything other than original replicating molecules. What causes variety is errors in the replication process that produce "offspring" different to the original.

    The new offspring will be different from the original. This difference may or may not provide the offspring with some advantage over all the previous generation that look like its parents. This is determined by the environment, determined by whether or not the offspring has been changed in any way that better suits the struggles of the environment.

    If the change has produced an offspring that is more adapted to the environment then this offspring and its future offspring have a higher fitness compared to the non-adapted offspring. As such, over time and many generations, they as a group survive better than others, and gradually they replace them.

    When these different errors in copying, which happen over hundreds of thousands of times each generation, build up they, over millions of years, produce complex systems that are better adapted to the environment.

    That is basically neo-Darwinian evolution. It takes millions of years because the changes in each generation are very small (by the way this includes mutation but is not limited to it)

    So how, according to Creationists, did a few thousand species of animal and plant life "evolve" into hundreds of thousands in the space of a few hundred years.

    And please don't say "The same way" because as I said the above process takes millions of years and for the big changes requires mutation (which Creationists reject as being useless). It is too slow to have been responsible for Ark to Modern day.


  • Options
    #7779
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    If that is how you define Darwinian Evolution, then I accept that it occurs within Kinds and using pre-existing (i.e. originally created) genetic diversity

    It is evolution. The question is how does it do it so quickly

    Both yourself and Wolfsbane are describing processes that should require millions of years, yet you say it can and did happen in a few hundred.
    J C wrote: »
    …..however, such ‘micro-evolution’ uses pre-existing (originally created) genetic variation …and it is accepted by Creation Scientists as scientifically valid!!!:D

    But JC you aren't talking about "micro-evolution" (evolution within species)

    You are talking about macro-evolution on a MASSIVE scale. You are talking about the emergence of hundreds of thousands of species in less time than it took to domesticate the dog.

    There is no point laughing at Darwinian evolution and saying that macro-evolution (the evolution of one species to another) cannot take place even over millions of years, while at the same time requiring that not only is macro-evolution possible but it can happen over decades.
    J C wrote: »
    This is an example of sexual recombination using the pre-existing genetic heritage of Mankind!!!

    Its an example of neo-Darwinian biological evolution. The only thing that is required for Darwinian evolution to take place it that the make up the offspring is different to the make up of the parent.
    J C wrote: »
    The differentiation of genetic information during sexual reproduction DOES produce traits that are “new and (often) beneficial”…..but these mechanisms work by ‘leveraging’ the existing genetic information ‘platform’ of the organisms concerned

    None of that stop it being Darwinian evolution.
    J C wrote: »
    ……and they are NOT the mythical ‘macro-Evolutionary processes’

    Good point JC (was wondering if you would take the bait :D:D:rolleyes:)

    This form of evolution, the recombination of parental genetic structure will not lead to macro-evolution (species to species jumps).

    Biological evolution theories that mutation is required to occur to to shake up the genetic code that much so a change that big to take place, and it still requires thousands of years of mutation build up.

    The problem you have JC is that you need a process that can cause a species jump (after all you go from a few thousand species to hundreds of thousands in a few hundred years), yet you have rejected mutation as a way that can happen

    You require macro-evolution to take place on a massive level, but you have rejected the only known process that can actually cause that.

    Which was a bit silly now, wasn't it.

    Anyway, Wolfsbane is about to dazzle us all with an explanation of how one species can evolve into another in a few generations without the process of mutation, so perhaps you will want to wait until he has gone.


  • Options
    #7780
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Anyway, Wolfsbane is about to dazzle us all with an explanation of how one species can evolve into another in a few generations without the process of mutation, so perhaps you will want to wait until he has gone.
    Hmm. I wasn't aware that I didn't believe in mutation as part of a speciation process. Your insight into the thoughts of God and man continue to amaze me. ;)

    As a layman, I'll leave the technical stuff to the experts. So here's a couple of pointers to rapid speciation:
    Sympatric speciation
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp

    Transposable elements
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/wallaby.asp


  • Options
    #7781
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    As regular posters know, I've been tracking the evolution of creationism and religion in general and I've suspected privately for quite a while that what we currently think of as creationism would eventually evolve, by natural selection and over a long period of time, into evolution.

    As such, it's quite interesting to see that the market leaders, AiG, are now actively selling belief in speciation, where before, it was flatly denied (see JC's endless posts on the topic on this thread around two years ago). And not only are AiG selling the belief quite vigorously, but they're pretending that it's never been any other way in creationism. What a dishonest bunch of reprobates!

    Anyhow, from that link that wolfsbane kindly posted, we learn that:
    AiG wrote:
    [...] the creation model depends heavily on speciation. [...] speciation [...] is thus a positive for creation theorists.
    Bearing in mind the dramatic arrival of this piece of "new information" onto the creationist scene, I predict that the next creationist belief to evolve towards reality will be the idea that "new information" itself cannot be created, when it's quite obvious that it can be. And I predict that this will take no more than five years or so to come from the creationist heresy it currently is, to a fundamental tenet of mainstream creationism. And I predict that AiG, if they're still around, will scoff at others for not believing it, just as they scoff at other creationists for not accepting speciation at the moment.

    And that'll be an interesting point to arrive at, because by then, creationism will be generally indistinguishable from the current Theory of Evolution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7782
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    robindch wrote: »
    As regular posters know, I've been tracking the evolution of creationism and religion in general and I've suspected privately for quite a while that what we currently think of as creationism would eventually evolve, by natural selection and over a long period of time, into evolution.

    As such, it's quite interesting to see that the market leaders, AiG, are now actively selling belief in speciation, where before, it was flatly denied (see JC's endless posts on the topic on this thread around two years ago). And not only are AiG selling the belief quite vigorously, but they're pretending that it's never been any other way in creationism. What a dishonest bunch of reprobates!

    Anyhow, from that link that wolfsbane kindly posted, we learn that:Bearing in mind the dramatic arrival of this piece of "new information" onto the creationist scene, I predict that the next creationist belief to evolve towards reality will be the idea that "new information" itself cannot be created, when it's quite obvious that it can be. And I predict that this will take no more than five years or so to come from the creationist heresy it currently is, to a fundamental tenet of mainstream creationism. And I predict that AiG, if they're still around, will scoff at others for not believing it, just as they scoff at other creationists for not accepting speciation at the moment.

    And that'll be an interesting point to arrive at, because by then, creationism will be generally indistinguishable from the current Theory of Evolution.

    Hahaha, thats quite interesting actually.


  • Options
    #7783
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Yet you seem to have no clue what these species were like or what modern species evolved from what, beyond rather ridiculous barn-yard matching that children do in primary school (the cow looks like the horse, the duck looks like the chicken)
    In the real world, Wickie, not the evolutionary fairytale one, even evolutionists can be honest enough to admit such precision descriptions are not possible:
    Evolution of the Tiger
    http://www.forevertigers.com/evolution.htm
    No, actually as Scofflaw points out species, modern day ones and ones in discovered in the fossil record, are pretty well defined.
    See above and:
    Species problem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    One could choose any horse-like fossil and say it is the horse/zebra ancestor from the Ark. But is it? No way of telling.

    What do you mean there is no way of telling??

    You are using the existence of these original Ark species as evidence of the Biblical Flood. Yet now you are telling me that you actually have no idea what these original species were?
    Yes. You want me to call the common ancestor of the horse and zebra a Zerse? OK. But what colour was it? Was its ears more like the zebra or the horse of today? We can't know.

    So much for the Creation model common ancestor of the horse/zebra. Can you tell me the same information about the evolutionary version?
    One what grounds do you claim they existed?
    Because their descendants are with us today.
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The fossils are obviously nearer the original than what we have today

    Why is that "obvious"?

    Its only obvious if you assume these species actually existed. If they didn't exist then the fossils could be from hundreds of thousands of years ago.
    Ah, yes. That is exactly the same reasoning you have for the existence of your evolutionary fossils. I can just as easily say If they didn't exist then the fossils could be from a few thousands of years ago
    Are you following the point I'm making. What evidence is there that these original species existed AT ALL?
    The same evidence you appeal to: the fossils. They are mostly of the creatures around the time of the Flood. It is just figuring out which are of the kinds that survived through the Ark and continued by speciation till today. For example, a horse-like fossil may be the original kind, but it may be a later speciation from it that died out.
    Maybe some cave drawings will emerge? What are you talking about.
    I thought you wanted records of the kinds going on to the Ark. I can think of no other likely source than those who saw it leaving a pictoral record.
    How have Creationists formed what you claim is a scientific theory of the evolution of all life from the Ark without any evidence that these original species even existed?
    As I pointed out above, the existence of their descendants today and the fossil record provide us both with the evidence.
    You can't ignore insects as most species need a lot of space because insects have short life spans and require colonies to continue and breed. A single pair of insects would not have lasted the year in the Ark. There are also a hundred thousand species of insect.
    It is not how many species we have now that has to be catered for, but the original kinds. Let's be generous and only halve that figure. How much space would that take?
    Secondly that is reverse deduction. Find the species first, then see if they would all fit on the Ark. This evidence then supports the idea of the Ark.

    You can't do it the other way around, look at the Bible and say the Ark was this big so only X amount of species were on it and then take that as a given and stop looking. That isn't science.
    I'm taking speciation as having increased since the Ark; you are doing the same in the evolutionary scenario. That means less species back then.
    Have you found any fossils of any of the species that were supposed to have been on the Ark?

    If you count them up how many do you have?
    Many of the fossils would be of the same kind as on the Ark. They are fossils because they didn't make it on board. :D

    Again as Scofflaw points out that doesn't hold.

    If you want to try that out buy a fresh water Goldfish and throw him in the Ocean. See how long he lasts.
    How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp
    What do you mean "not a big leap"

    You are talking about what evolutionary biologists say took about 200 million years happening in a few hundred years of "adaptation" as Creationists call it.

    How is that "not a big leap"
    It is a big leap for evolutionary biologists, but not for the creatures themselves. See above on rapid speciation.
    That is basically neo-Darwinian evolution. It takes millions of years because the changes in each generation are very small (by the way this includes mutation but is not limited to it)

    So how, according to Creationists, did a few thousand species of animal and plant life "evolve" into hundreds of thousands in the space of a few hundred years.

    And please don't say "The same way" because as I said the above process takes millions of years and for the big changes requires mutation (which Creationists reject as being useless). It is too slow to have been responsible for Ark to Modern day.
    See above on rapid speciation.

    But see also on Mutation:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp


  • Options
    #7784
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    As regular posters know, I've been tracking the evolution of creationism and religion in general and I've suspected privately for quite a while that what we currently think of as creationism would eventually evolve, by natural selection and over a long period of time, into evolution.

    As such, it's quite interesting to see that the market leaders, AiG, are now actively selling belief in speciation, where before, it was flatly denied (see JC's endless posts on the topic on this thread around two years ago). And not only are AiG selling the belief quite vigorously, but they're pretending that it's never been any other way in creationism. What a dishonest bunch of reprobates!

    Anyhow, from that link that wolfsbane kindly posted, we learn that:Bearing in mind the dramatic arrival of this piece of "new information" onto the creationist scene, I predict that the next creationist belief to evolve towards reality will be the idea that "new information" itself cannot be created, when it's quite obvious that it can be. And I predict that this will take no more than five years or so to come from the creationist heresy it currently is, to a fundamental tenet of mainstream creationism. And I predict that AiG, if they're still around, will scoff at others for not believing it, just as they scoff at other creationists for not accepting speciation at the moment.

    And that'll be an interesting point to arrive at, because by then, creationism will be generally indistinguishable from the current Theory of Evolution.
    This is indeed strange, for I have just been checking some old creationist books (1970) and they clearly teach speciation: e.g. several species of hog arising from an original kind.

    Maybe Robin needs to check his facts rather than his wishful dreams? :D


  • Options
    #7785
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Nearly everyone regularly has opportunities to commit crime and avoid punishment - nearly everyone fails to take them. In general, if they do take them, it is with a lot of rationalisation ("it doesn't hurt anyone", "no-one would miss a bit of it", "everyone does it"). People return wallets, fail to abuse those in their care, and so on, without any fear of punishment.

    Still, that's a reasonable alternative hypothesis (and popular amongst conservatives). I'll see if I can think up a test case which points one way or the other (almost certainly games theory experiments) - perhaps you could do the same?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Thanks, I will. It will be after the holidays, however, as Christmas Pressure Overtime begins Sunday night and I'll be working and sleeping most of the time. :eek:


  • Options
    #7786
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Well TBH Wolfsbane after an entire post of cyclical reasoning I'm not sure you know what a logical conclusion is to start with.
    I agree there has been a lot of circular reasoning, leading us round and round the bush. So not a lot of point in prolonging it. I find you guilty of circular reasoning, you think the same of mine. We'll leave others to judge.

    As I must leave off shortly until the holidays, let me leave you with a few responses:
    Otherwise you are simply working on your interpretation, and you cannot know that this interpretation is actually correct. For all you know the devil has been talking to you. For all you know you have completely missed the point of one of the key Bible verses and you have been doing the majority of stuff from. For all you know you should be a Catholic.
    I understand how you can think that, but it is not the reality:
    Not only do I have the Witness within, I have seen it confirmed by God's answers to specific prayers the 'chances' against which would have been astronomical.
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I claim no authority for my interpretation. The Word itself has the authority.

    Of course you claim authority for your interpretation. You just made a number of authoritive statements. He makes the essentials clear. Says who exactly? Why, you of course? Authoritive statement right there.
    No, the Bible says so:
    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    It is clear enough for all we need to be complete and able for every good work.
    How the theory/model of Darwinian biological evolution functions does not depend on how the first molecules started to replicate in the first place, or where the atoms of these molecules came from in the first place.
    OK, then I take it you support the recent mature creation model being given a hearing in scientific discussion? As long as Creationists do not specify how it came to be, it is a valid subject for scientific debate? Maybe JC will follow up your reply on this, if I'm not here.
    It was illogical of God to send his son to be used as payment for a debt that he himself wanted to collect. He basically paid himself off with something he already had, ie himself. That is the high of illogical.
    It was a debt He could not ignore without dishonouring Himself.

    That being the case, He either could have punished the sinner, or punished One who offered to pay the sinner's debt.

    It all comes down to grace - undeserved love. The Father loved us so much He sent His Only son to bear our sins in His own body on the tree. Jeus loved us and gave Himself for our sins. That's why Christians love Him.
    If God declares, in the Bible, that he is absoluste authority that statement is only true if he is actually absolute authority. But one cannot take the statement itself as support for the truth of the statement.
    Indeed. I was not doing so - just showing you that this is the Biblical picture of God. If you want to argue about what the God of the Bible can and cannot do, first you need to see how He is defined in it.


  • Options
    #7787
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote:
    Maybe Robin needs to check his facts rather than his wishful dreams?
    Unfortunately, I do. You can of course find creationists who "taught" the opposite years ago -- creationism is a wide, wide church -- just as you can still find old-earth-creationists, islamic-creationists and many other creationist subspecies who disagree with what Ham and his friends are selling now.

    The difference that I thought I'd made clear is that AiG is now selling this line quite proactively to creationist consumers, so that the belief will probably become mainstream creationist "teaching" quite quickly. Actually, since you're reproducing AiG's line here yourself, I suspect this has already happened.

    And I'm looking forward to the time when Ham takes a few minutes out to read up a (real) science journal where he could learn that beneficial mutations do arise randomly. With some luck, he'll notice that he can turn a few quick bucks by selling to his obedient flock the creationist "discovery" that god acts through randomness. Isn't god great? :)


  • Options
    #7788
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    Unless wolfsbane is more intelligent than nearly every Christian that ever lived, such an assertion simply falls down in the face of the vast number of competing interpretations of Christian essentials.
    To differ on essentials is to make at least one side not an authentic Christian. Most Churches calling themselves Christian hold to that.

    It is sort of the key meaning of 'essential'. The Deity of Christ, for example, is an essential whereas the subjects and mode of Baptism is not (at least for most Protestants).


  • Options
    #7789
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I do. You can of course find creationists who "taught" the opposite years ago -- creationism is a wide, wide church -- just as you can still find old-earth-creationists, islamic-creationists and many other creationist subspecies who disagree with what Ham and his friends are selling now.

    The difference that I thought I'd made clear is that AiG is now selling this line quite proactively to creationist consumers, so that the belief will probably become mainstream creationist "teaching" quite quickly. Actually, since you're reproducing AiG's line here yourself, I suspect this has already happened.

    And I'm looking forward to the time when Ham takes a few minutes out to read up a (real) science journal where he could learn that beneficial mutations do arise randomly. With some luck, he'll notice that he can turn a few quick bucks by selling to his obedient flock the creationist "discovery" that god acts through randomness. Isn't god great? :)
    Since you are accusing mainstream Creationism of once/still being non-speciation, perhaps you will provide the references?

    I have never understood it to be so, and checking my old books confirms it. You may be more familiar with Creation publications than me, so I await with interest.


  • Options
    #7790
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    In the real world, Wickie, not the evolutionary fairytale one, even evolutionists can be honest enough to admit such precision descriptions are not possible:

    Then how can you you say that all species on Earth developed from a few thousand on a wooden boat.

    This seems to be the point you are missing Wolfsbane.

    You are perfectly right that evolutionary biologists don't have an exact decedent tree. But then they don't claim to. You guys claim you have evidence that the species on the Ark existed. You do not have any evidence of this
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    See above and:
    Species problem
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
    Yes, perhaps you should read that wikipedia article yourself Wolfsbane.

    The species problem is not that one cannot define a species, it is that there are different ways to define a species. All ways are well defined.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes. You want me to call the common ancestor of the horse and zebra a Zerse? OK. But what colour was it? Was its ears more like the zebra or the horse of today? We can't know.

    Yet some how you can know that it was on a wooden boat 6,000 years ago and is the single common ancestor of hundreds of modern day species (of course you don't know what species).

    You can know this how exactly?

    Present the evidence please.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Because their descendants are with us today.

    Yes but that isn't evidence that these Biblical creatures existed at all.

    Lets just sum up shall we.

    Creationists claim that life on Earth (except snails apparently) are descendent from a few thousand animals that lived for a year on a wooden boat some 6,000 years ago.

    You have no fossil evidence of any of these original animals

    You have no genetic evidence that modern day species all came from these original kinds

    You have no classification of which modern day animal came from which one of the original animals

    So what exactly do you have?

    Or lets put it another way -

    Say I make the claim that all species on Earth developed from 10,000 animals that lived 15,000 years ago. On what evidence do you claim that your creationist theory is any more correct than that one that I just made up on the spot there.

    I await your inevitable link to an article on AiG that you haven't read :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Ah, yes. That is exactly the same reasoning you have for the existence of your evolutionary fossils.

    Yes Wolfsbane but evolutionary fossils are DATED

    Fossils are dated, using various different independent methods, from different radio meteric dating to where they are found in rock.

    Proper scientists don't just guess that they are all younger than 6,000 years.

    So where are your fossils and how are they dated. Please don't change the subject and tell me radio meteric dating is flawed, you have already covered that.

    I want your fossils and I want your dating method
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The same evidence you appeal to: the fossils. They are mostly of the creatures around the time of the Flood.

    What, all of them.

    Here is a list of known (discovered) dinosaur genus (genus now, not species, each would contain individual species).

    http://users.tellurian.com/rmarguls/d-genera.html

    Quite a few as you can imagine. And that is just dinosaurs. If you include the entire known fossil record you are talking hundreds of thousands of more species.

    So they were all on the Ark were they? Because your Ark needs to be a LOT bigger.

    Oh and by the way, how have you dated all these fossils to 6,000 years ago. Please describe your dating methods.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is just figuring out which are of the kinds that survived through the Ark and continued by speciation till today.
    Ok, how have you figured this out?

    Please describe the science behind this process.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I thought you wanted records of the kinds going on to the Ark. I can think of no other likely source than those who saw it leaving a pictoral record.

    Ok, produce these cave drawings Wolfsbane. You can't because you don't have them. Yet you have concluded that this event happened, and now you are guessing that in some point we will find a cave drawing of it. What are you talking about? How is this science?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As I pointed out above, the existence of their descendants today and the fossil record provide us both with the evidence.

    It doesn't provide you with evidence at all Wolfsbane.

    It is like me claiming that my great great grandfather lived on the moon. You ask "What evidence do you have of that?" and I say "Well I'm alive aren't I"

    Neither modern species nor the fossil record have any indicators that all life on Earth developed from a few thousand species living on a boat in the middle east 6,000 years ago.

    And you can't provide any, no matter how many times you are ask.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is not how many species we have now that has to be catered for, but the original kinds. Let's be generous and only halve that figure. How much space would that take?

    450,000 species.

    There are 900,000 known insect species alive today, with approx 1,000 new ones being discovered every year.

    How much space and food would you need for 450,000 species of insect for a year? Ireland would probably do :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm taking speciation as having increased since the Ark; you are doing the same in the evolutionary scenario. That means less species back then.
    Well firstly that isn't how evolution works. There weren't "less species" back then in the evolutionary model. In fact that would work at all.

    Secondly to you "back then" is only 6,000 years ago. You have no evidence that macro-evolution can actually happen that fast, or any process that can cause it to happen in the first place bar mutation based evolution, which you reject as being impossible.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Many of the fossils would be of the same kind as on the Ark. They are fossils because they didn't make it on board. :D

    Ok, well we have hundreds of thousands of species in the fossil record Wolfsbane, so which ones were on the Ark?

    And when did the others appear? 10 years after the flood? 100 years after the flood.

    You see the problem is you don't just have to explain the species alive today. You have to explain ALL THE SPECIES IN THE KNOWN FOSSIL RECORD.

    You say the list of genus for dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were simple one order of Reptile class. The fossil record is MASSIVE Wolfsbane, and according to you all of them came from the animals on the Ark.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp

    That article doesn't explain how fish or plants survived the Flood.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It is a big leap for evolutionary biologists, but not for the creatures themselves. See above on rapid speciation.

    Explain to me now how macro-evolution happens on a rapid time line (hundred years)


  • Options
    #7791
    Nerin
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    not the evolutionary fairytale one
    originally posted by pot : Kettle, You're black
    lol


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7792
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Scofflaw said:

    To differ on essentials is to make at least one side not an authentic Christian. Most Churches calling themselves Christian hold to that.

    It is sort of the key meaning of 'essential'. The Deity of Christ, for example, is an essential whereas the subjects and mode of Baptism is not (at least for most Protestants).

    And the additional divinity of Mary? Belief in the Holy Trinity?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #7793
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Because their descendants are with us today.
    Is it not the absence of step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation changes that is constantly lauded by you creationists as a fatal flaw or weakness in evolution? The "missing links", so to speak?

    If so, then why is the same absence of step-by-step progression a fatal flaw or weakness in Creationism for you? Indeed, there is greater absence in Creationism, so shouldn't that make it more unacceptable to you?

    Or could it be that the criteria of acceptability are not equally applied?


  • Options
    #7794
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    As regular posters know, I've been tracking the evolution of creationism and religion in general and I've suspected privately for quite a while that what we currently think of as creationism would eventually evolve, by natural selection and over a long period of time, into evolution.

    We cannot win!!

    Earlier on this thread, Creation Scientists were accused of being 'closed minded' and incapable of accepting observable evidence.......now we are accused of being practically Materialistic Evolutionists!!!!

    BOTH opinions are WRONG!!!:eek:

    I have always used repeatably observable evidence for my scientific observations......and I have never denied that speciation occurs.......within Kinds!!:)

    Creation Scientists may be 'Evolutionists' in the sense that they accept that Natural Selection occurs using pre-existing genetic diversity.......but it is the ultimate source of this diversity (and how & when it arose in the first place) that we disagree upon with Evolutionists.......and this has ALWAYS been the case.:D


    robindch wrote: »
    As such, it's quite interesting to see that the market leaders, AiG, are now actively selling belief in speciation, where before, it was flatly denied (see JC's endless posts on the topic on this thread around two years ago). And not only are AiG selling the belief quite vigorously, but they're pretending that it's never been any other way in creationism. What a dishonest bunch of reprobates!

    Many Creationist Theologians around the time of Darwin believed in 'the fixity of species'......but this is clearly a much too limited interpretation of the biblical statements that all living organisms reproduced 'after their Kind'.

    Speciation (within Kinds) has always been accepted by most Creation Scientists
    robindch wrote: »
    Anyhow, from that link that wolfsbane kindly posted, we learn that:Bearing in mind the dramatic arrival of this piece of "new information" onto the creationist scene, I predict that the next creationist belief to evolve towards reality will be the idea that "new information" itself cannot be created, when it's quite obvious that it can be. And I predict that this will take no more than five years or so to come from the creationist heresy it currently is, to a fundamental tenet of mainstream creationism. And I predict that AiG, if they're still around, will scoff at others for not believing it, just as they scoff at other creationists for not accepting speciation at the moment.

    And that'll be an interesting point to arrive at, because by then, creationism will be generally indistinguishable from the current Theory of Evolution.

    Dream on!!!!

    You are correct that, Evolutionism may become indestingushable from Creationism..........BECAUSE within 10 years, the Theory of Materialistic Evolution will be largely eclipsed by Intelligent Design Theory within Science .......and Creationism within Theology........some would say that this has ALREADY occurred........within the top etchelons of both disciplines!!!!!!


  • Options
    #7795
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bonkey wrote: »
    Is it not the absence of step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation changes that is constantly lauded by you creationists as a fatal flaw or weakness in evolution? The "missing links", so to speak?

    If so, then why is the same absence of step-by-step progression a fatal flaw or weakness in Creationism for you? Indeed, there is greater absence in Creationism, so shouldn't that make it more unacceptable to you?

    Or could it be that the criteria of acceptability are not equally applied?

    The absence of 'missing links' between ALL Kinds isn't so much a 'flaw' in the Theory of Evolution ......it is a complete demolition of it!!!!!

    ........the 'flaw' (as you under-statedly describe it) concerns the COMPLETE absence of MILLIONS of hypothetical 'links' on the supposed 'continuum' between Pond Slime and Man!!!!!:eek::D

    The same criteria IS applied to the observed scientific evidence ..... and it provides proof for Creation and it invalidates Spontaneous Evolution!!:D

    Science observes RAPID speciation within Kinds.......which IS consistent with Creation Science Theory......and the absence of 'missing links' between ALL Kinds provides a very serious observable scientific objection to the Theory of Spontaneous Evolution!!!!!:D


  • Options
    #7796
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »

    I have always used repeatably observable evidence for my scientific observations......

    Oh so you have some papers for us then?


  • Options
    #7797
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    Science observes RAPID speciation within Kinds

    It does?

    Firstly define the time scale that you mean by "rapid"

    Then detail the species that have evolved into new species within this "rapid" time scale.

    (btw a liger isn't an example of this, before you use that tired example)


  • Options
    #7798
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Firstly define the time scale that you mean by "rapid" (Speciation)

    Then detail the species that have evolved into new species within this "rapid" time scale.

    (btw a liger isn't an example of this, before you use that tired example)

    "rapid" = anything from instantly (in the case of the Triangle of U)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_U

    .......to a few years (in the case of Darwin's Finches)
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/darwins-beaks

    ........and here are details of some other creatures that have rapidly speciated (within Kinds)!!!

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

    .....and here is one of the possible gentic mechanisms for this rapid speciation:-
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/wallaby.asp

    I agree that a Liger isn't direct evidence of speciation......but it is good indirect evidence that Lions and Tigers are descended from (recent) common ancestors!!!!:cool::D


  • Options
    #7799
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    robindch wrote: »
    I've been tracking the evolution of creationism and religion in general and I've suspected privately for quite a while that what we currently think of as creationism would eventually evolve, by natural selection and over a long period of time, into evolution.
    lol. I don't read this thread too often, as it looks like a full-time career. Is there any possiblity that someone could do an edited highlights on a monthly basis so we don't miss these gems?


  • Options
    #7800
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ........and here are details of some other creatures that have rapidly speciated (within Kinds)!!!

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

    So much nonsense, so little time

    Trinidad relocated guppies - Not a new species

    Bahamas anole lizards - Not a new species

    British Columbia wind-dispersed weedy plants - Not a new species

    Fruit Fly - New species, used all the time as an example of classical Darwinian evolution, because of increase in genetic material.

    So I suppose we should be impressed that you got one example of species changing, just a shame you picked the one evolutionists classically use all the time (and one that you previously attacked on this forum ... but I suppose your memory doesn't evolve as quickly as these species are supposed to)

    It is interested now though that you admit that not only does evolution take place, but that macro-evolution also takes place.

    Progress I guess.

    You (and when I say you I mean AiG which you just seem to rip off without any actual understanding of their articles) are now apparently saying that macro-evolution does take place, but only within "kinds" (a undefined concept, handily enough). This allows you to use all the research of modern biology demonstrating that macro-evolution happens, by just tagging on at the end "BTW this only can happen within kinds, and it actually happens much much faster than evolutionists claim"

    You seem to ignore the fact that every single species on Earth should be going through rapid macro-evolution though if all species are supposed to be "new" having evolved only a few decades ago.

    Picking examples of fruit flies, who have very quick reproduction cycles (heck JC, why not pick bacteria?) to "prove" that evolution happens rapidly is a bit silly, since you also need a similar rate of macro-evolution to take place in mammals, which don't reproduce a quickly.

    So any examples of mammals going through species change as rapidly as a fruit fly? And lions giving birth to house cats?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7801
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BTW I would love to get Wolfsbane's reaction to the fact that JC is now trying to throw out to us not only examples of macro-evolution, but examples of macro-evolution that take place within an observed time frame.

    Poor old Wolfsbane must be rather confused, considering that he (and JC btw) were demanding that we present him with such evidence, as he was working under the (mis)information given by JC that macro-evolution had never been observed, was only a "theory" and was in fact impossible.

    Oh how the tide has changed. Obviously realising that they couldn't keep that up AiG have now shifted theories to the idea that macro-evolution does in fact take place (you can't argue against the evidence), but low and behold this amazingly fits the Bible, because this macro-evolution can only take place within "kinds" (just don't ask what a kind is, you won't get an answer), a concept that is totally undefined by them so they can say that about any macro-evolution change they like ("oh yes, that was within its "kind", as we predicted)

    So Wolfsbane, if you are still reading this and want evidence that macro-evolution takes place, I'm sure JC (I mean AiG of course) with his new found shift in attack, can provide you with lots of examples, copied straight off evolutionist websites, of macro-evolution taking place.

    Welcome back JC, you have been missed :D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement