Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum
Reuters ^ | 1 hour, 39 minutes ago | Andrea Hopkins

Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long

PETERSBURG, Kentucky - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.

A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.

"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.

The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.

For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.

While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.

"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.

FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN

While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.

Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.

Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.

"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.

Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.

The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.

"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.

"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.

Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.

"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.

The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.

The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.

The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: darwinismisareligion; darwinismsnotscience; evolutionisareligion; flintstonesministry; goddidit; ignoranceisstrength; yecapologetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 701-716 next last
To: Kozak
And what kind of cruel nasty Deity would give us the curiosity to explore that universe and the ability to try and understand it, while making the entire exercise a sham?

He put it all there to test your your faith ;-)

301 posted on 01/15/2007 2:02:41 PM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

--And what kind of cruel nasty Deity would give us the curiosity to explore that universe and the ability to try and understand it, while making the entire exercise a sham?--


The same one that would condemn women to an eternity of pain for taking a bite out of an apple, the same one that would drown the world in a flood, the same one that would command the slaughter of a whole town including the innocent women and children ...


302 posted on 01/15/2007 2:03:15 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Can you explaine to me, using creationism, why fish which live their whole lives in dark caves, were created not being able to see?


303 posted on 01/15/2007 2:04:12 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

--He put it all there to test your your faith ;-)--

Sort of like the parent that tries to beat their children into loving them ...


304 posted on 01/15/2007 2:04:54 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
... People often try to discount the noah ark story by claiming "You couldn't fit all the species on the ark'- but Noah didn't have to- just all the 'kinds' on the ark was sufficient, and YES there wqas plenty of room ...

So in 4,300 years the 'cat' kind begat lions, tigers, panthers, hyenas (yes, they are a cat), leopards, jaguar, puma, cheetah, the lynx, caracal, and bobcat, along with your ordinary house cat?

That's some major evoluting!

305 posted on 01/15/2007 3:34:11 PM PST by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.

Just like they did 6,000 years ago.

Hasn't anyone around here ever heard of ALLEY OOP?

306 posted on 01/15/2007 3:46:42 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

simple- micro-evolution- or more appropriately- adaption. Here's a fact you may not be aware of- a Jesuit Priest discovered micro-evolution long before Darwin did- micro-evolution- or adaption, are a biologicial fact which was never in dispute for Christians. Macro-evolution however is a biological impossibility.


307 posted on 01/15/2007 4:49:38 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

--the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility?--

I have never seen that fact.

Then you aint looking very sincirely or haRD. I've stated several times now that in order for evolution to be viable, you need to have lateral gene transference in order for the new information necessary for one species to become another KIND. Kind is the key word here- mutations can never evolve positively enough to assemble themselves in order to create new information- all mutations do is skew information in the cells already present- and mutations are almost 100% negative with a a small percentage being nuetral-

Now- when you get looking into mutations objectively, it becomes quickly apparent that even a zillion years would not be enough time for millions of necessary mutations to happen in concert- with nothign going awry, in order for design to hapen- even then, if this impossibility were vaguely possible, you would still have the same KIND without the necessary lateraL GENE TRANSFERENCE..

lATERAL GENE TRANSFERENCE IS EVOLUTIONS BEST HOPE- INFACT ONLY HOPE REALLY srry cps. if you're serious about understanding the biological impossibilities of bothj mutations and gene transferences for evolution- the latter is the one you should delve into- because without it, it is impossible for kinds to become different kinds. Even then, the cellular protections prevent this from happening. It has never been witnessed in nature aside from certain bacteria between their own kind, and in other species always turns out to be a deficit and not an asset when done artificially under controlled manipulations. (beleive it or not- goats were given gene info from spiders and produced silk in their milk)

Upallnight [I first pointed out a 'fact' but you chose to (even after a second request) to ignore my post]

You're gonna have to repost your 'fact' again- I've lost track= so many insults hurled by everyone, so little time to waDE through it all and keep track


308 posted on 01/15/2007 5:08:28 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

{How can one trust a 'scientist' that takes this pledge and is paid for his 'research'.]

You certainly can't provided you discout the science based simply on the fact that they are Christian and take a pledge stating that history has factually documented the biblical facts- as has archeology- not sure what that has to do with science facts- but meh- Their science is based on the very same facts that secular science is- peer reviews prove this out- you can dismiss it if you like- but Christian science has very valid evidences that secular science takes seriously- Why? Because idt's factually based on absolutes that secular science HAS to attend to in order to be valid- just as the Christian scientists HAVE to attend to factual evidences presented by secular sciences. You may not take it seriously, but thankfully- secular scientists do, and can argue facts free from the shackles of bias- As I said before- when Your calculator adds 2 and 2 and comes up with 5- and a person beleives it blindly, then they are no longer an objective person- the opposing side presents facts that show 2 and 2 are 4


309 posted on 01/15/2007 5:14:49 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Do you believe in lateral gene transference?


310 posted on 01/15/2007 5:15:14 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

do i beleive in it? Yes of course- it can and does happen- just not in nature between differing kinds-


311 posted on 01/15/2007 5:16:38 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-49895/evolution


312 posted on 01/15/2007 5:21:52 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

I've read that argument put forth by Brittanica before,, and it doesn't hold water- first, measuring genetic differences does not account for new information- it merely proves micro-evolution- adapting of species based on gene info already present between like kinds- new info is not being introduced as would be necessary as I've stated before for a 'morph' to an entirely new KIND- we've known for quite some time that gene info can change drastically during micro-evolution- but it always plays out using all the info already present in a species or KIND.

The whole Brittanica article falls apart on one key issue "New Info" - they showed 'Changed Info' but not "New"


313 posted on 01/15/2007 5:30:10 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I also want to poiont out that that article states false info- it has been proven that horses did not evolve into hooved creatures from toed creatures- they were two seperate KINDS alive at the same time- one died out the other survived


314 posted on 01/15/2007 5:34:49 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation
Mutation
The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation.

Most mutations are thought to be neutral with regards to fitness. (Kimura defines neutral as |s| < 1/2Ne, where s is the selective coefficient and Ne is the effective population size.) Only a small portion of the genome of eukaryotes contains coding segments. And, although some non-coding DNA is involved in gene regulation or other cellular functions, it is probable that most base changes would have no fitness consequence.

Most mutations that have any phenotypic effect are deleterious. Mutations that result in amino acid substitutions can change the shape of a protein, potentially changing or eliminating its function. This can lead to inadequacies in biochemical pathways or interfere with the process of development. Organisms are sufficiently integrated that most random changes will not produce a fitness benefit. Only a very small percentage of mutations are beneficial. The ratio of neutral to deleterious to beneficial mutations is unknown and probably varies with respect to details of the locus in question and environment.

Mutation limits the rate of evolution. The rate of evolution can be expressed in terms of nucleotide substitutions in a lineage per generation. Substitution is the replacement of an allele by another in a population. This is a two step process: First a mutation occurs in an individual, creating a new allele. This allele subsequently increases in frequency to fixation in the population. The rate of evolution is k = 2Nvu (in diploids) where k is nucleotide substitutions, N is the effective population size, v is the rate of mutation and u is the proportion of mutants that eventually fix in the population.

Mutation need not be limiting over short time spans. The rate of evolution expressed above is given as a steady state equation; it assumes the system is at equilibrium. Given the time frames for a single mutant to fix, it is unclear if populations are ever at equilibrium. A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate. Other mechanisms can also contribute selectable variation. Recombination creates new combinations of alleles (or new alleles) by joining sequences with separate microevolutionary histories within a population. Gene flow can also supply the gene pool with variants. Of course, the ultimate source of these variants is mutation.

The Fate of Mutant Alleles
Mutation creates new alleles. Each new allele enters the gene pool as a single copy amongst many. Most are lost from the gene pool, the organism carrying them fails to reproduce, or reproduces but does not pass on that particular allele. A mutant's fate is shared with the genetic background it appears in. A new allele will initially be linked to other loci in its genetic background, even loci on other chromosomes. If the allele increases in frequency in the population, initially it will be paired with other alleles at that locus -- the new allele will primarily be carried in individuals heterozygous for that locus. The chance of it being paired with itself is low until it reaches intermediate frequency. If the allele is recessive, its effect won't be seen in any individual until a homozygote is formed. The eventual fate of the allele depends on whether it is neutral, deleterious or beneficial.

Neutral alleles
Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix. Fixation is the process of an allele increasing to a frequency at or near one. The probability of a neutral allele fixing in a population is equal to its frequency. For a new mutant in a diploid population, this frequency is 1/2N.

If mutations are neutral with respect to fitness, the rate of substitution (k) is equal to the rate of mutation(v). This does not mean every new mutant eventually reaches fixation. Alleles are added to the gene pool by mutation at the same rate they are lost to drift. For neutral alleles that do fix, it takes an average of 4N generations to do so. However, at equilibrium there are multiple alleles segregating in the population. In small populations, few mutations appear each generation. The ones that fix do so quickly relative to large populations. In large populations, more mutants appear over the generations. But, the ones that fix take much longer to do so. Thus, the rate of neutral evolution (in substitutions per generation) is independent of population size.

The rate of mutation determines the level of heterozygosity at a locus according to the neutral theory. Heterozygosity is simply the proportion of the population that is heterozygous. Equilibrium heterozygosity is given as H = 4Nv/[4Nv+1] (for diploid populations). H can vary from a very small number to almost one. In small populations, H is small (because the equation is approximately a very small number divided by one). In (biologically unrealistically) large populations, heterozygosity approaches one (because the equation is approximately a large number divided by itself). Directly testing this model is difficult because N and v can only be estimated for most natural populations. But, heterozygosities are believed to be too low to be described by a strictly neutral model. Solutions offered by neutralists for this discrepancy include hypothesizing that natural populations may not be at equilibrium.

At equilibrium there should be a few alleles at intermediate frequency and many at very low frequencies. This is the Ewens- Watterson distribution. New alleles enter a population every generation, most remain at low frequency until they are lost. A few drift to intermediate frequencies, a very few drift all the way to fixation. In Drosophila pseudoobscura, the protein Xanthine dehydrogenase (Xdh) has many variants. In a single population, Keith, et. al., found that 59 of 96 proteins were of one type, two others were represented ten and nine times and nine other types were present singly or in low numbers.

Deleterious alleles
Deleterious mutants are selected against but remain at low frequency in the gene pool. In diploids, a deleterious recessive mutant may increase in frequency due to drift. Selection cannot see it when it is masked by a dominant allele. Many disease causing alleles remain at low frequency for this reason. People who are carriers do not suffer the negative effect of the allele. Unless they mate with another carrier, the allele may simply continue to be passed on. Deleterious alleles also remain in populations at a low frequency due to a balance between recurrent mutation and selection. This is called the mutation load.

Beneficial alleles
Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones. Wright calculated that the probability of fixation of a beneficial allele is 2s. (This assumes a large population size, a small fitness benefit, and that heterozygotes have an intermediate fitness. A benefit of 2s yields an overall rate of evolution: k=4Nvs where v is the mutation rate to beneficial alleles) An allele that conferred a one percent increase in fitness only has a two percent chance of fixing. The probability of fixation of beneficial type of mutant is boosted by recurrent mutation. The beneficial mutant may be lost several times, but eventually it will arise and stick in a population. (Recall that even deleterious mutants recur in a population.)

Directional selection depletes genetic variation at the selected locus as the fitter allele sweeps to fixation. Sequences linked to the selected allele also increase in frequency due to hitchhiking. The lower the rate of recombination, the larger the window of sequence that hitchhikes. Begun and Aquadro compared the level of nucleotide polymorphism within and between species with the rate of recombination at a locus. Low levels of nucleotide polymorphism within species coincided with low rates of recombination. This could be explained by molecular mechanisms if recombination itself was mutagenic. In this case, recombination with also be correlated with nucleotide divergence between species. But, the level of sequence divergence did not correlate with the rate of recombination. Thus, they inferred that selection was the cause. The correlation between recombination and nucleotide polymorphism leaves the conclusion that selective sweeps occur often enough to leave an imprint on the level of genetic variation in natural populations.

One example of a beneficial mutation comes from the mosquito Culex pipiens. In this organism, a gene that was involved with breaking down organophosphates - common insecticide ingredients -became duplicated. Progeny of the organism with this mutation quickly swept across the worldwide mosquito population. There are numerous examples of insects developing resistance to chemicals, especially DDT which was once heavily used in this country. And, most importantly, even though "good" mutations happen much less frequently than "bad" ones, organisms with "good" mutations thrive while organisms with "bad" ones die out.

If beneficial mutants arise infrequently, the only fitness differences in a population will be due to new deleterious mutants and the deleterious recessives. Selection will simply be weeding out unfit variants. Only occasionally will a beneficial allele be sweeping through a population. The general lack of large fitness differences segregating in natural populations argues that beneficial mutants do indeed arise infrequently. However, the impact of a beneficial mutant on the level of variation at a locus can be large and lasting. It takes many generations for a locus to regain appreciable levels of heterozygosity following a selective sweep.

Recombination
Each chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.

In meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.

Recombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can form a new allele. Recombination is a mechanism of evolution because it adds new alleles and combinations of alleles to the gene pool.

Gene Flow
New organisms may enter a population by migration from another population. If they mate within the population, they can bring new alleles to the local gene pool. This is called gene flow. In some closely related species, fertile hybrids can result from interspecific matings. These hybrids can vector genes from species to species.

Gene flow between more distantly related species occurs infrequently. This is called horizontal transfer. One interesting case of this involves genetic elements called P elements. Margaret Kidwell found that P elements were transferred from some species in the Drosophila willistoni group to Drosophila melanogaster. These two species of fruit flies are distantly related and hybrids do not form. Their ranges do, however, overlap. The P elements were vectored into D. melanogaster via a parasitic mite that targets both these species. This mite punctures the exoskeleton of the flies and feeds on the "juices". Material, including DNA, from one fly can be transferred to another when the mite feeds. Since P elements actively move in the genome (they are themselves parasites of DNA), one incorporated itself into the genome of a melanogaster fly and subsequently spread through the species. Laboratory stocks of melanogaster caught prior to the 1940's lack of P elements. All natural populations today harbor them.


315 posted on 01/15/2007 5:44:01 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

--I also want to poiont out that that article states false info- it has been proven that horses did not evolve into hooved creatures from toed creatures- they were two seperate KINDS alive at the same time- one died out the other survived--

Which creationist website should I go to for that proof?


316 posted on 01/15/2007 5:52:16 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

[Which creationist website should I go to for that proof?]

no need- visit any honest secular scientific site for the truth- School books have been perpetuating this lie for decades or longer-

As for your previous post- egads dude- I just read tons- and don't care to get bogged down in this subject going over the same old stuff continuously.

The mutations do NOT introduce NEW information -ever- they alter info already present- there is plenty of evidence from BOTH camps on this issue that prove this out- Decades of mutating fruit flies have NEVER produced NEW information- this is fact- it has only resulted in old info already present being transformed within the bounds of info already provided within the species.

As I said- you NEED to introduce NEW info- not change info already present- A cat will never have the info necessary for a beak- it can however receive altered info that produces 5 legs, or six,- and through the passsing of time CAN develope Chartacteristics that were not present in their subspecies- like facial shortening, longer legs etc. this is adaption- or microevolution=-


317 posted on 01/15/2007 6:23:06 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

ME: [Which creationist website should I go to for that proof?]

YOU: no need- visit any honest secular scientific site for the truth- School books have been perpetuating this lie for decades or longer-

Something in your 'proof' is lacking ...


318 posted on 01/15/2007 7:30:47 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html


319 posted on 01/15/2007 7:36:17 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

--As I said- you NEED to introduce NEW info- not change info already present- A cat will never have the info necessary for a beak---

If you were presented a cat with a beak, you would most likely change your tune and say that cat's all along had the genetic coding for beaks but it was just turned off.


320 posted on 01/15/2007 7:42:26 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: All

Just a quick note - I'm a believe in the scriptures. You could call me a YEC, but I probably won't fit into that mold after this.

How long did Adam live? 930 years.

When did time start for Adam? Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

How long did Adam live BEFORE he and Eve sinned?


321 posted on 01/15/2007 7:46:26 PM PST by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

You have to know how to prepare it!


322 posted on 01/15/2007 7:50:29 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

318- no sir nothign is lacking- you can readily find the info on secular science sites- as I said- not all scientists cover their ears eyes and mouths- some annalyze and dissect the facts truthfully- not afraid of confronting opposing facts.

320- If indeed- however, as I said- IF the coding is not there to begin with it can never be forced through mutations- decades of mutating fruit flies has pretty much sealed the deal on this issue- MANY mutations occured, and were recorded, and all were seen as alterations of coding that was already avasilable- NO introductions of NEW information were ever produced., nor have any been found in nature when scrutinized by science. This is backed up by forensic annalysis of the species. The Nylon eating bacteria was at first thought to have had NEW information produced through soem random mutation, but was later discovered to have always had the coding, but suppressed due to lack of nylon in the past- forensic discovery uncovered this- Oh- there were many, and still are many who refuse to admit this, but the facts don't lie.


323 posted on 01/15/2007 8:12:03 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: doc30
God did.

You obviously don't know what naturalistic means. Why am I not surprised.

324 posted on 01/15/2007 8:23:18 PM PST by Tim Long (Pardon Ramos and Compean. January 17 is approaching fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Finny
You clearly seem to know nothing of science or faith.

A) your fellow man and often religious scientiests are so wantonly wicked that they've successfully engaged in blatant fraud for the past century

Ever hear of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's embryo drawings, etc.? I doubt it. You're so obsessed with the religion of Darwin that you can do nothing but accuse thinking individuals of pride, which has nothing to do with objective truth.

325 posted on 01/15/2007 8:30:00 PM PST by Tim Long (Pardon Ramos and Compean. January 17 is approaching fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
God and Evolution can co-exist. One could say, only God could create a mechanism as ingenious as evolution.

I've heard that trite talking point enough. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they can; they don't.

326 posted on 01/15/2007 8:32:30 PM PST by Tim Long (Pardon Ramos and Compean. January 17 is approaching fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

--Ever hear of Piltdown Man,--

Wasn't that the fraud by the French priest that was determined by scientists to be a fraud?


327 posted on 01/15/2007 8:33:14 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Where creationists have it all wrong.

But I have to give you credit. You certainly stay up to date with the creationist website lies.


328 posted on 01/15/2007 8:36:05 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Don't flame me for that, at least not here and now.

Not at all. I appreciate sincere questions.

There is a theory that the verse refers to a water canopy present at creation that accounts for the doubled atmospheric pressure at the time, as evidenced in amber air bubbles. The canopy is thought to have fallen as rain after being disrupted by steam jets released in the tectonic chaos of the Deluge. This is a view that I accept, but the organization building the museum does not.

329 posted on 01/15/2007 8:38:33 PM PST by Tim Long (Pardon Ramos and Compean. January 17 is approaching fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Interesting.............. But not as interesting as Rachel Ray!

I'd disagree. The shoot was a great concept, but poor execution. : )

330 posted on 01/15/2007 8:39:52 PM PST by Tim Long (Pardon Ramos and Compean. January 17 is approaching fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Ever hear of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's embryo drawings, etc.?

What about them?

Piltdown was a hoax that fooled a few British anthropologists for a while, but was increasingly ignored because it didn't fit the overall pattern of evolution. A few decades later scientists finally got around to showing why it didn't fit.

Nebraska Man fooled one fellow and an illustrator for a while. Big deal.

The drawings? Bah! Creationist exaggeration at its best.

If that's the best you can come up with against 150 years of evolutionary exploration and science you're not even half trying. Get over to AnswersinGenesis or one of those other sites and you can be an instant expert.

But don't expect scientists to pay much attention. Its already been debunked here: Index of Creationist Claims.

331 posted on 01/15/2007 8:40:37 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



Hopefully I'll have some time to delve into the conversations and article more tomorrow during lunch. Everyone. Be. Nice.
332 posted on 01/15/2007 8:46:43 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; SirLinksalot

He can't hold a candle to Sirlinksalot on the other thread.


333 posted on 01/15/2007 8:49:12 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
"Scientific evidence says it is."

So does the Bible, but you'd never know it if you spent all of your time reading the posts of willfully ignorant people who have better things to do than actually read the book itself.

334 posted on 01/15/2007 8:54:51 PM PST by Radix (My Tag Line has a first name....its O S C A R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

and you certainly don't keep up with errors presented to you by secular sites- those rebuttles on that site have all been re- rebuttled succsefully- your boys at nmsr do exactly what talkorigin.com does and that is put words in the mouths of their oponents in an attempt to discredit them and make them look foolish- nmsr's arguments are disingenuous and deceitful and so are talkorigins. Had you looked into the matter more closely- you would have seen that- nmsr is saying spetner said something when he waas NOT saying that at all- and nmsr does NOT even counter the valid points made by spetner-

Spetner was arguing that the bacteria fed on precursors to nylon and ALREADY had the info in their gene code that could adapt to actual nylon- NO NEW info was produced in the bacteria- nmsr then goes on to assert that INCREASES in info mean NEW information- you would catch that subtly unless you looked objectively at what nmsr was saying- but nmsr misses the point completely evidently- yet that doesn't stop them from trying to deceive by asserting that sptner 'admitted to an increase' and trying to deceive you by infering that increases mean evolution- it does NOT.

Mnsr's bacterial resistance to antibiotics argument that it would prove evolution is laughable at best and has been totally refuted by secular sciences.

But alas- you'll beleive what you want


335 posted on 01/15/2007 9:03:45 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

yes, that's the whole point of the evolution theory of course. To justify our lower animalistic side as being natural. The darkside does it's best work through bad science. A very sophisticated brainwashing which seems like true knowledge. It's all driven by some anger towards parents or some bad authority which makes people tend to hate God. Not saying I'm free of all my anger but I just see how it opens our minds to false teachings.


336 posted on 01/15/2007 9:20:49 PM PST by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

my gosh- the more I read on that site the more disingenuous it really is- either that or it's ignorant of facts- 'right handed snails are sexually isolated, and thus a 'new species' was put forth as some kind of lame attempt to prove evolution? All it did was reinforce the fact that microevolution happens- which we all agree on- it's evolution through mutations that we don't agree on- species going outside their own KIND to create new KINDS with the NEW information that has been received (presumably by some biologically impossible lateral gene transferences that all worked in harmony to magically create the new KIND- despite hte fact that lateral gene transferences have never been recorded between dissimiliar KINDS.)


337 posted on 01/15/2007 9:29:38 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?


338 posted on 01/16/2007 12:13:49 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

"Studies of the DNA code support evolution."

And studies of DNA code support creationism. It is such a complex system of information, and requires such an amazing organization make it work, that it couldn't possibly be mere random molecules, acting in a random fashion. If life is so easy, try making some, using only non-living materials, then get back to me. Hey, if DNA is just a bunch of molecules, then get a bucket of those molecular components, and let's see how much DNA you get from it.


339 posted on 01/16/2007 12:20:03 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

"Show me some proof, some facts."

OK, take all the proof, and all the facts that your favorite scientists have already used to convince you that life was all one big coincidence. Now, draw the only plausible conclusion from all that evidence; life had to have been created, purposely, by a creator. Life is found everywhere, all over the world, even in the darkest, most inhospitable regions of the ocean floor, so it must be VERY EASY to make, right? If it's so abundant, as it is, then making some should be a lead-pipe-cinch. Heck, it's hard to keep the stuff at bay! So, go ahead. Take any non-living materials you want, and create some life. Take your time. Take 6 days, if you want.


340 posted on 01/16/2007 12:26:17 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03

"...the moon landing was fake, Elvis is alive, etc."

Hey, leave Elvis out of this. Show some respect.


341 posted on 01/16/2007 12:28:31 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Tim Long
Man that is just about one of the best spins on history ever. And then you link it to a cloaked talk-origins source to seal your deal, NOT

Wolf
342 posted on 01/16/2007 1:01:48 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: zylphed

Bacteria became mitochondria? How did cellular metabolism occur before that? And what made them change? And those must have been tiny bacteria... and what evidence proves that mitochondria were once discrete bacteria? Interesting. I've never heard that before.


343 posted on 01/16/2007 1:19:54 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

"Show me where the Catholic church teaches the creationist nonsense. "


If ever any of your arguments are to be taken seriously, CS, you need to understand one very simple fact: the Catholic Church believes in Creationism.

It is an a priori fact. Without Creationism, there IS NO Catholic Church. Jeez.

You have just come right out and said that the Pope, all clergy, and the masses of faithful, are all atheists. Oh, except for a few dumb Catholics, scattered here and there.


344 posted on 01/16/2007 1:25:45 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: zylphed

"40% of the human genome encodes things called retroelements, which are pretty much all essentially dead viruses that have inserted themselves into our genome. "


Yes, I've heard that before. How do scientists know that parts of our genetic makeup is virus pieces? How did they come to that conclusion? Is that the only possible explanation for the evidence?


345 posted on 01/16/2007 1:38:09 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; fabian

"...he knows that fabian..."

Yep. When dealing with some evolutionist fanatics, especially the strongly anti-Christian faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch. If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer's credentials. Then they make some sneering comment referring to your belief in a flat Earth.


346 posted on 01/16/2007 1:54:50 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: jim35
mitochondria were once discrete bacteria

Well that is the theory anyway. And that (as all in that kind) forms the bedrock to their mountain of evidence. So don't dare question that, and especially don't speak or publish that doubt in the world of academia-maniacs.

Wolf
347 posted on 01/16/2007 2:13:53 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Ridiculous? Maybe so, Ivan. But it sure would have been cool. Imagine, an order of ribs that could tip your car over; quarrying rocks on the back of a big brontosaurus; opening your canned dino meat with the beak of a terasaur! Of course, putting the cat out could be somewhat problematic...


348 posted on 01/16/2007 3:11:08 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

"...trying to discredit facts by avoiding the facts and pointing out someones affiliation..."

It's called "genetic fallacy." Discrediting an idea or assertion, because of the originator of the idea's personal traits is common, and many of us are guilty of it.


349 posted on 01/16/2007 3:25:52 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

Is this all your original work?


350 posted on 01/16/2007 3:51:26 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 701-716 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson