Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

BobRyan said:

Yep... we also still have that today - yet no science lab can get aseptic lifeless-rock environment to produce a prokaryote.

The funny thing is that in the Lab our technology cannot even "come up with the help" to get it to work.

As we can provide in the lab... still "no joy".

And it is not like scientists are sitting around waiting for the lifeless aseptic rock environment to "remember" how it did it in the past - we are actively trying to help the rock remember it. still... "no joy".

Click to expand...

Uh huh. You say this like it's a problem.

BobRyan said:

A problem for believers in what??

Click to expand...

I dunno, you're not being very clear. You keep going on about abiogenesis, saying it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory, which is true. But so what? That's certainly not a problem for Christianity, and it's not a problem for any existing scientific theories. So why go on and on about it?

HARK! said:

How exactly would it do that?

Click to expand...

Evolution is about gradual change in a population over generations. You don't get speciation for many generations.

HARK! said:

How exactly would it do that?

Click to expand...

Because evolution makes no such prediction. Dogs don't change into cats. Every organism is the same species as its parents and offspring, and yet speciation still happens, because it happens between populations, not generations and certainly not to individuals.

HARK! said:

So how would a dramatic change disprove Evolution?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't. You're moving the goalposts now.

Why don't we see a gradual change in the fossil record?

Click to expand...

We do.

HARK! said:

So how would a dramatic change disprove Evolution?

Click to expand...

I just told you. Evolution is about gradual change in a population over generations. A dramatic change is not a gradual change. It would require too many mutations happening all of a sudden that somehow work together. Evolution would have no explanation for that. If that can happen, then evolution doesn't make sense.

Why don't we see a gradual change in the fossil record?

Click to expand...

Because fossilization was rare. If every animal that ever lived was fossilized... well, actually, we'd still never see most of them due to being destroyed by geological forces or whatever. We're very lucky to have found what we have.

Having said that, we do see some fairly gradual change in some fossils.

HARK! said:

No I'm not. You might want to go back and reread the conversation.

Click to expand...

You first talked about one animal transforming into another, which is not predicted by science. Then you moved the goalposts by redefining it as a "dramatic change", which is certainly possible depending on how you define "dramatic" and "change", to say nothing of the timeframe.

[We do see evidence of gradual change in the fossil record]

Proof?

Click to expand...

HARK! said:

Interesting, so can you explain why there are wolves and foxes in Europe; and there are also wolves and foxes in North America?

Click to expand...

Populations of both migrated from one continent to the other.

HARK! said:

Interesting. So how did foxes migrate to Australia?

Click to expand...

English people who enjoyed fox hunting brought them there.

HARK! said:

How exactly would it do that?

Click to expand...

That you do not know shows why you can't effectively argue against evolution. You can't argue against a concept you do not understand.

HARK! said:

I don't see a gradual change between cro-magnon and modern. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Apparently you lack observational skills?

Why are chimps living among the same populations of homo sapiens to this day?

Click to expand...

For the same reason that my cousins and I are alive despite sharing an ancestor.

HARK! said:

Why are chimps living among the same populations of homo sapiens to this day?

Click to expand...

You do not understand this, do you Hark!?

Chimpanzees are genetically almost identical to sapiens (I won't look up how close). The explanation evolutionary science offers goes something like this:

A family of ancestral apes was isolated from the main population and developed without further interbreeding outside that family. That isolated group evolved into homo sapiens with several (perhaps many) intermediate stages in between. Some of the remaining apes evolved into chimpanzees, probably through isolation of another group, with some of them becoming separated from their species and becoming bonobos. Yet another evolved into gorillas.

It is complex, I know.