Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Correct, it does not disprove Creationism. There are many other thing that do that. I'm sure someone on this forum has a nice cut & paste list of the relevant threads.
You mean there are other things that disprove the idea that God created the universe? In the weeks that I have posted here, I have never seen such a thing.
If there are 'many other things that do that', I'm sure we would see the atheists spouting these things at every turn. I have found quite the contrary, actually. Atheists here often make the claim that science (incl. evolution, etc) does not equal atheism.
Unless you mean young-earth creationism...evolution, and especially cosmology, etc..have already relegated that one to the dustbin. However, the general theology of creationism remains unchallenged as far as I know.
You mean there are other things that disprove the idea that God created the universe? In the weeks that I have posted here, I have never seen such a thing.
If there are 'many other things that do that', I'm sure we would see the atheists spouting these things at every turn. I have found quite the contrary, actually. Atheists here often make the claim that science (incl. evolution, etc) does not equal atheism.
Unless you mean young-earth creationism...evolution, and especially cosmology, etc..have already relegated that one to the dustbin. However, the general theology of creationism remains unchallenged as far as I know.
Yes, I was referring to the specific belief of young-earth creationism, not the general belief of 'God created'. Sorry for being unclear.
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
I'm curious what both evolutionists and creationists make of the rare frog find a couple of months ago in India. Apparently scientists were split as to whether or not this variation of frog had ever actually existed. Those that said it was real were proven right. They said it went extinct some 100 million years ago, but as it turns out a LIVE specimen was found (in 2003 AD) in a part of India known for hosting unusual life forms. I'm impressed with the science that forensically detected this thing should have ever existed, but I think the fact that it's late for its own extinction by about 100 million years casts doubt on the evolutionary timeline. This is the only online article I've found on it but I'm sure there are others. If you know of some please let me know...
__________________ Please help the world's needy support themselves through ECHO minstries - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' - Matthew 25:40
Last edited by Eph415; 15th November 2003 at 04:51 PM.
"new" species are found now and again. Creatures have survived through mass extinctions when they should have died, as you put it. exothermic reptiles should have gone out with the dinos, but many survived. what makes you think it casts doubt on the E.t.? just curious if you would expand on this.
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
what makes you think it casts doubt on the E.t.? just curious if you would expand on this.
Sure, maybe I don't understand the scientific nature of this find as to whether it is just a close contemporary relative of the type of frog expected to long be extinct or literally a specimen of that frog family. If the evolutionary theory that was accurate enough to predict this kind of frog's existance was to be proven true, I would have expected an old fossil (we won't get into an aging debate - I'm certainly no expert there either). But what we have here is frog that hops around, eats etc. Isn't it possible the aging/dating theories that said he should have long been extinct are flawed in the face of such a discrepancy (if it is one...) ??
__________________ Please help the world's needy support themselves through ECHO minstries - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' - Matthew 25:40
I'm curious what both evolutionists and creationists make of the rare frog find a couple of months ago in India. Apparently scientists were split as to whether or not this variation of frog had ever actually existed. Those that said it was real were proven right. They said it went extinct some 100 million years ago, but as it turns out a LIVE specimen was found (in 2003 AD) in a part of India known for hosting unusual life forms. I'm impressed with the science that forensically detected this thing should have ever existed, but I think the fact that it's late for its own extinction by about 100 million years casts doubt on the evolutionary timeline. This is the only online article I've found on it but I'm sure there are others. If you know of some please let me know...
Sure, maybe I don't understand the scientific nature of this find as to whether it is just a close contemporary relative of the type of frog expected to long be extinct or literally a specimen of that frog family. If the evolutionary theory that was accurate enough to predict this kind of frog's existance was to be proven true, I would have expected an old fossil (we won't get into an aging debate - I'm certainly no expert there either). But what we have here is frog that hops around, eats etc. Isn't it possible the aging/dating theories that said he should have long been extinct are flawed in the face of such a discrepancy (if it is one...) ??
Actually, this is a confirmation of evolutionary theory. From what I could tell from the article, it was predicted that a creature like this exsisted at one point. Now that one was found, that predication is confirmed. As far as predicting its extinction, the theory by itself, doen't do that. The theory predicted a frog like this, but we could not find a living one, so therefore, it was assumed that if it existed, it is now extinct. This find clears both of those up. It did exist, and it did not go extinct. This doesn't do anything to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory. 'Living Fossils' are well known and were predicted by Darwin in his original Origin of a Species. They come about when there is extreme isolation and little genetic variety. My guess is that this frog matches both of those but from this can't be concluded from the article.
Sure, maybe I don't understand the scientific nature of this find as to whether it is just a close contemporary relative of the type of frog expected to long be extinct or literally a specimen of that frog family. If the evolutionary theory that was accurate enough to predict this kind of frog's existance was to be proven true, I would have expected an old fossil (we won't get into an aging debate - I'm certainly no expert there either). But what we have here is frog that hops around, eats etc. Isn't it possible the aging/dating theories that said he should have long been extinct are flawed in the face of such a discrepancy (if it is one...) ??
I think you are misreading what the article is saying.
There is no talk about aging/dating this kind of frog. Hence no discrepancy.
All it seems to be saying is that a family of frogs in the Seychelles which had no known relatives, and that whatever it evolved from was assumed to be in the Indian subcontinent, there is now a species in India that seems to be a close relative. And that theses frogs seem closely related to a group of species known from fossil evidence.
Linear Mode
