Posted on 01/12/2005 8:00:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Pay special attention to point #4
Are Darwin's finches also hoaxes?
Insofar as they are presented as proof of evolution. They only illustrate variation.
As for the flood, it supposedly lasted 40 days and nights,
Closer to a year.
That takes millions of years. Are you telling me that all those deposits formed in forty days?
How long do you think these layers took to form?
They formed in a matter of hours.
If the fossils where caused by the Biblical flood then they would all be in one layer, which they are clearly not.
Creationists don't claim this. Your statement assumes the flood layer would be just one layer. See the picture above. That was all laid down by the same flood. Don't forget that rapid burial is necessary for fossilization.
There are other theories that haven't been conclusively proven but are probably true, like the Big Bang Theory.
Isn't it curious that some theories have wider acceptance than others? Don't you wonder why that is? It is not because the supposed scientific set demands its acceptance.
Noctural means they are ACTIVE during the night and sleep during the day.
"Where they gonna go? Detroit?"
Slightly off topic perhaps, but does anyone know anything about the Howard Hughes Medical Institute? My understanding is that you can be a perfesser at Stanford, Yale etc. and if you're a "star" you get asked to be part of the HHMI. I'm sure there are all sorts of economic benefits to the perfesser and his home university and al the rest but what about the internal finances of the HHMI? I just wonder if there are any skeletons rattling around in that closet. Just curious.
I sure don't. Whenever overwhelming evidence conflicts with religious precept a significant number will reject the former in order to retain the latter.
But they don't reside on bark during sleep.
Yeah, I was being a bit tongue and cheek with it. The point I was trying to make is; in the million years or so for the foreleg to make its journey to flight, the appendage would be particularly unhelpful to flying or running. I'd think with a million year competitive disadvantage any species would be hard pressed to survive long enough to take wing (or most any other major transition).
Not remotely true.
Any advantage in the game of life is likely to propagate throughout the gene pool.
Blank-Slate Syndrome -- a horrible way to go through life.
I thought I'd ping one of those geologists in case you had any questions.
Two glaring flaws in that statement:
1) Evolution and creation share the same evidence. Therefore if it is overwhelming evidence, it is also overwhelming for creation. It is the interpretation of that evidence that is in question.
2) Evolution isn't rejected just because it conflicts with the Genesis account. Evolution is rejected because it is bad science, bad logic and not even very good story telling. This is not just the opinion of evolutionists, but a few creationists as well:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin |
LOL! As if the resident evolutionists have some kind of authority which transcends truth. Nothing I said about layers is incorrect, not even by evolutionary standards.
Because one formation of layered sediments formed in a day, that does not therefore mean that all layered sedimentary formations were formed in a short timeframe. And quick burial is required for most terrestial fossils - but many oceanic fossils do not require such - indeed, many limestones are almost entirely composed of coral fossils, such as those forming Guadalupe Peak in Texas (a huge fossil reef complex). And many key indicator fossils - fossils found within a predictable timeframe and across wide parts of the globe - are often hard-shelled microorganisms such as foramnifera that will fossilize whereever they are deposited.
Has geology in the past understated catastrophism as a agent of geologic change? Yep. Does that therefore give a boost to creationism? Nope - just as the shift from a geosynclynic model to a techtonic model for mountain building, something far more profound, did nothing to prove creationism.
According to Lahn, "The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that's unprecedented..."
Extra fast and fortuitous random mutations effecting human brain development due to environmental pressure? Hmmm Lahn says, We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes and even that is a conservative estimate. But Lahn also says, It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans
Now consider that the last hypothetical common primate ancestor of both humans and the modern ape family lived approx 6 million years ago and had a brain size of 350 cc (approx brain size of a chimp). In regard to the human brain though, its not just size that matters (see antlers) or we would be studying whale and dolphin brain development or maybe they would be studying us
Accidental Just In Time Delivery?
Why bring up the USPS?
Okay, let's put it this way: You have been hit over the head with literally mountains of evidence. Of course, you do suffer from Blank-Slate Syndrome, so I guess your inability to retain information can't really be your fault.
Yep - that layered formation did form in a few days. However, you then take that one square-peg truth and try to pound it in every stratigraphic round hole that you come across.
You make my point for me. My point has always been that creationism/ID are consistent with ANY observation. Because of that, they are not falsifiable and hence are not scientific theories. If I am wrong, then please give an observation that would be inconsistent with ID/creationism (take your pick). It need not be something that has actually been observed, just something that potentially could be observed. Example, as pertaining to evolution: finding a new species of organism on earth that has different genetic material from all others would falsify common descent, which is a large part of the theory of evolution. Give a similar example for ID or creationism.
Oh, and FWIW, I have my own doubts about some of the dynamics of Darwinian evolution. However, the fossil evidence is fairly clear as to the rise, extent and extinction of species over time. How that happens still needs to be fully hashed out. But it did happen, and it has happened over hundreds of millions of years.
Yeah, I've noticed how well domesticated chickens, with their poorly developed wings easily run and flap their way to safety.
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.