Posted on 10/01/2015 6:16:47 AM PDT by lasereye
Ironically, most creationists I know of have no problem with horizontal variations such as the one this experiment generated.
Nifty!
Why is it that every article from the ICR is simply another criticism of evolutionary theory? And usually a small part of it, which is then extrapolated to “the whole theory must be junk”, just like leftists like to point to one crazed gun-owner and then paint every gun-owner as a crazie.
Not once is there ever an article from the ICR offering evidence in support of an alternate theory.
Not once.
Creation?
No that's adaptation. Show me the critter that evolved into a humming bird or a mouse and then I'll think about it.
Apparently, all ICR does is parrot the work of real scientists, while putting their slant on the work.
I’m starting to think they may have an agenda.
The name Creation Research is an indication of an alternative therom.
30,000+ generations? Gees.... it ought to be a catfish by now.
LOL! Good analogy!
What I find most curious is their tactic of using what they claim doesn't exist (evolution) and club their opponents over the head with it.
It comes down to the source of the information and ability to change.
Is it built into the critter (creation)
or is it “added” by mutation (evolution).
Which is more likely to produce the results we see?
You cut down a forest one tree at a time.
There are scientists out there examining the evidence for a Creator:
http://www.signatureinthecell.com
So, after 33,000 generations, e. coli is still e. coli.
Not once is there ever an article from the ICR offering evidence in support of an alternate theory.
The alternate theory is obvious to me and is even in the name of the ICR, Institute for Creation Research, Creation is the original theory and fact to many of us.
What I mean is that the ICR seems to think there’s only two theories out there, so if they can criticize Evolution enough, then “Creationism” automatically wins by default, no need to supply any proof. That’s not the way Science works - let’s see your proof before we believe.
Besides, the evidence for Evolution is vast and complex, so nitpicking about little points does nothing to invalidate the overall concept.
The Bible is a beautiful and powerful book, but it was never intended as a guide to the geological or biological history of the earth, nor should it be.
Just saying.
That depends on the environment. If the environment has changed so that the only source of food is at the other end of one of those pipes, the man without arms can survive while his "robust" peers are going to starve to death.
I see no evidence of evolution in nature. However, I’ve seen loads of evidence of extinction.
No evidence for evolution at all. Adaptation? Yep, lots of it. Evolution? Not so much.
The Bible has everything we need to know for us to know God and live. Granted it is not a science book, nor is it intended to be. But Genesis says the Lord created all the animals to reproduce according to their kind. The Lord did NOT make a living cell, telling it to evolve and change and fill the planet with life. Nor did He tell the Lemur that it was the chosen precursor for a being that will have a soul.
I believe, in and on faith, what the Bible says, there is NO part of it that is false. Notice I did not say that it explains everything. That understanding comes later. But in the meantime, it is true and sufficient.
I see no evidence of evolution in nature. However, I’ve seen loads of evidence of extinction.
Very true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.