Challenging Evolution

[gluadys]

You had me up to this last two sentences, can I assume you are talking about specific aspects of the theory of C as put forth by teachers of the theory rather than the root theory itself?

I personally have never heard a C make the claim that kind has clear boundries. I have heard some in both camps try to make it so, but have never read it in the bible, not heard C claim it to be so. The kind as put forth in the original theory, has no specifications as far as I can tell.

Well, again you show that you are unique. I have never heard a creo say that the kind was not a distinct group, a separate creation from all other kinds, and that it was quite impossible for an evolutionary lineage to lead from one kind to another. Every form of creationism I have ever encountered says that variation, adaptation and speciation occur only within the "kind".

If you do not agree with that, then you are not in agreement with creationists on this point. You may be the only person on earth with some sympathy for creationism that does not interpret "kind" in this way. Certainly, in my experience you are.

 

[gluadys]

So, then why are we allowed to throw away decades of observations that prove that animals reproduce after their kind because C is falsified?

That creatures reproduce is an observed fact. No matter what theory one propounds, one does not throw away that observation. That offspring are very like, if not exactly like, their parents is also an observed fact. So you do not throw that out no matter what the theory either.

Creationism is not falsified on the grounds that species do reproduce copies which are very similar to themselves. Creationism is falsified on the grounds that it denies that the differences between parent and offspring can accumulate over time to change the species. It has been shown that this does occur.

How is it falsified when we have been observing this phenomina for as long as man has observed and recorded scientific observations? You are confusing me even more! Or are you still stuck back on proving the YEC false. I haven't heard a C for I can't even begin to know how many years actually claim that the earth is young and there is no room for anything else. I am sure this old school of thought still exists, but I seldom run into it.

There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion. I don't live in one of those areas. Virtually everyone I know personally is a TE on this issue. Apparently you do not live in such a region either.

 

[razzelflabben]

yes, and that is that many different kinds were made independently. the problem is that we don't see this happening at all. In genesis we have the fowl created before the land animals, but in reality we have arboreal dinosaurs before we have birds. we have whales before land animals, but whales are a mammal that went back into the sea.

next step is the ark. we have two of each kind put onto the ark. the problem there is that if we define kinds as species we end up with seceral million animals on the ark. if we define to too loosely, then we require hyperevolution after landfall. then there is the question of how we know if two animals are of a kind or a different kind, and there is no way to tell.

We do not observe dogs having dog young? What kind of babies does your cat birth? Sorry, but all of our observations are consistant with life reproducing after their "kind". Science has proven this and is proving this all the time. Now, the fossil records are a different discussion. The last fossil records I examined left a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of room for interpretation of the data. Unless there has been a lot of new evidence since that time, it is inconclusive and suggests E but nothing more. As we should all be aware, the possibility for a theory to happen is much different than proof that it did.

As to the ark, This is new information to me and one I still am hearing conflicting reports on. I would be interested in seeing the new research, but I simple don't have time to review it carefully at this time. If someone would like to point me to this new research, I will happily review it as I have time. In the meantime, considering the conflicting reports, it is currently open to possibilities, and is inconclusive until proven otherwise. In fact, one the posts on this thread touched on the issue and I posted some questions and alternative possibilities that went unanswered.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion.

I always find this fact astonishing. In Europe YECs are rare as hens teeth, and until coming to CF I had only ever encountered 2 in 34 years. On coming here I discovered that YEC is still a widely believed notion in the USA, or at least in parts of it. Its an interesting discovery to observe.

Ghost

 

[razzelflabben]

I have nowhere assumed what you or others believe. I have been discussing creationism. If you are not a creationist, fine. If you are, fine. Regardless of your beliefs, I have been discussing creationism.

And a creationist can "fully accept the scientific definition of species" quite happily. What they canNOT do is use that definition as the definition of "kind".

Okay, if this is your stand, then before I can address any of your posts, you will have to define what E is, what C is, what ID is, and what I am, for I have posted my beliefs on the issue and your definitions do not fit. Once you give complete and accurate definitions for each, maybe we can have a reasonable discussion so that we are one the same page.

 

[razzelflabben]

Who is suggesting that we throw away decades of observeration? Your error lies in thinking that decades of observation "prove" that animals reproduce after their own kind.

I'm not "stuck back on proving the YEC false." It has been proven false to the satisfaction of thw world's scientists (who know vastly more about the subject than you or I). What I have been doing is demonstrating that one of the major flaws of creationism is that they cannot even define the most important biological definition necessary to creationism - that fo "kind".

We must not be talking about the same theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, again you show that you are unique. I have never heard a creo say that the kind was not a distinct group, a separate creation from all other kinds, and that it was quite impossible for an evolutionary lineage to lead from one kind to another. Every form of creationism I have ever encountered says that variation, adaptation and speciation occur only within the "kind".

If you do not agree with that, then you are not in agreement with creationists on this point. You may be the only person on earth with some sympathy for creationism that does not interpret "kind" in this way. Certainly, in my experience you are.

It would seem that you are reading into my belief a bit, I am not saying that it is possible for one cell to evolve into all the species we have today, rather what I am saying is that a mastif and a yorky are both dogs and are decendant from dogs. The variations come from inbreeding, not crossing species lines. To cross species lines would means, a cat being from the species of dog. This is not proven by any means that I currently know of and is theory based on the possibility that science has observed. So it the possibility that species lines are not crossed. Thus both are theories. A mastif and a yorky, are subspecies of a bigger group called species, as I understand clasifications. Am I missing something important here?

 

[Jet Black]

We do not observe dogs having dog young? What kind of babies does your cat birth? Sorry, but all of our observations are consistant with life reproducing after their "kind".

again, evolution says absolutely no different, though speciations will occur and characters may become so derived as to make the new version completely differnt to the old version, so much so that one would not trivially consider them the same. (if an alien came to earth today, would he really think that Great Danes and Chihuauas shared a recent common ancestor, without doing extensive tests?) The difference is the backwards difference. evolution predicts that intermediates between the different species will be found (and they are) it predicts that there will be a whole host of other similarities, which I have gone over already.

Science has proven this and is proving this all the time. Now, the fossil records are a different discussion. The last fossil records I examined left a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of room for interpretation of the data. Unless there has been a lot of new evidence since that time, it is inconclusive and suggests E but nothing more.

really? then what do you consider the theropod, cetacean and human lineages then? even the therapsid lineage is highly significant in that it shows directly a whole host of intermediate mammalian-reptillian features (including a creature which simultaneously had a mammalian and a reptillian jaw) and what is more, these lineages match up extremely well with the genetic record, both in a quantitative and qualitative sense.

As to the ark, This is new information to me and one I still am hearing conflicting reports on. I would be interested in seeing the new research, but I simple don't have time to review it carefully at this time. If someone would like to point me to this new research, I will happily review it as I have time. In the meantime, considering the conflicting reports, it is currently open to possibilities, and is inconclusive until proven otherwise. In fact, one the posts on this thread touched on the issue and I posted some questions and alternative possibilities that went unanswered.

conflicting reports? I am not aware that anyone is really researching it with vigour anymore. the creationists might have a bit of a try, but given that they cannot even define a kind yet, they have no clue how many organisms were on board the ark, or for that matter how much evolution was required post-landfall. bear in mind that there are a number of cultures which were recording things for the past 6000 years, and there seems to be remarkably little in the way of mentions of rapidly changing animals. Creationist attepts at baraminology are laughable, and when they try something such as characterising the ancestry of the primates using humans as an ourgroup, their results fail miserably.

 

[razzelflabben]

That creatures reproduce is an observed fact. No matter what theory one propounds, one does not throw away that observation. That offspring are very like, if not exactly like, their parents is also an observed fact. So you do not throw that out no matter what the theory either.

Creationism is not falsified on the grounds that species do reproduce copies which are very similar to themselves. Creationism is falsified on the grounds that it denies that the differences between parent and offspring can accumulate over time to change the species. It has been shown that this does occur.

Again, that would depend on the definition of species. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that a salamander can viably sustain a mutation that would produce an offspring vastly different from itself. Remember that fuzzyness in the definition of species. To falsify C on the grounds that that line is fuzzy, grossly steps of the line of the scientific methodology we have discussed earlier. Instead, it suggests more discussion as to defining species on both side, not just one.

In fact, one of the reasons I doubt this species change, is because of the adaptabilty of animals to their environment. Take for instance, the neonate salamander, as long as the neonate is kept in an environment that limits its growth, it remains neonate, (young form) When however, (I think it was Iodine) the chemicals are introduced into it's environment that are lacking, it grows into a salamander. The species has not changed, but it's ability to adapt to it's environment is still in tacked. This amazing ability is exactly why I doubt the possibility of crossing species lines. HOwever, that is not to say that subspecies lines are not observed as being crossed. This is observed and one could assume that species lines could be crossed much the same way I assume they cannot. The problem is two fold, 1. there is no actual evidence showing the lines have been definately crossed (meaning no error in the definition can account for the claim) 2. Until both camps can settle on an accurate definition that is not fuzzy, there cannot be any proof of either because it becomes an interpretation of the definition from both sides.

I have heard here how E does not require a specific definition for species to be proven, I differ with this assumption. I think that if E cannot be more specific in it's definition of species, it cannot ever be proven or disprove C. Why, because the whole theory relies on the change from one species to another. It makes it or breaks it on this one point. So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. And the E finds this acceptable all the while saying that the C cannot do the same thing. It is double standards like this that leave many to question the entire theory of E rather than just parts of the theory. Both theories hinge on the definition of species! It is up to both to come up with a definition that is testable.

There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion. I don't live in one of those areas. Virtually everyone I know personally is a TE on this issue. Apparently you do not live in such a region either.

Aparantly, or at lease circles of people we talk to.

 

[mrversatile48]

That creatures reproduce is an observed fact. No matter what theory one propounds, one does not throw away that observation. That offspring are very like, if not exactly like, their parents is also an observed fact. So you do not throw that out no matter what the theory either.

Creationism is not falsified on the grounds that species do reproduce copies which are very similar to themselves. Creationism is falsified on the grounds that it denies that the differences between parent and offspring can accumulate over time to change the species. It has been shown that this does occur.




There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion. I don't live in one of those areas. Virtually everyone I know personally is a TE on this issue. Apparently you do not live in such a region either.

Happy Tuesday everybody!

(That's a special hi to Jet Black: hilarious profie, dude!)

It made me realise that I left Bible College the year you were born - interdenominational & international evangelical 1, so, yes, I do realise that many even born-again Christians believe in theistic evolution

But many my generation just got dazzled by presentational pzazz

Once again, the last 17 hours of posts confirm what God has laid on my heart to share

I've twice got agreement from evolutiomnists that if Darwin were right, evolution from 1 species-to-another-to another would still go on -(which again brings us to the millions of missing links - @ every supposed step/stage

So..

am I right in saying that you also expect it to continue?

That you view all change as progress?

So..

where do we go from here?

As individuals, & as a planet?

Let's consider the nature of changes within living memory, OK?

I can't resist asking if you realise that X-Men, 1 & 2, are pure fiction?

That the voice-over about, "sometimes evolution takes sudden/giant leaps forward!" is also pure fiction??

Having done high school in the '60s, I know that many simply accepted the great rallying cry of the 20th century - that science would lead us to a Utopia of leisure & pleasure, where robots & PCs would do all the work, leaving man to reach his full potential

The other great 20th century rallying cry was that mankind has finally come of age!

Aldous Huxley's classic, "Brave New World" was adopteds by UNESCO as inspiration for the mass-media 24x7, cradle-to-grave "education, education, eduacation - aka brainwashing - (thanks to HUxley's brother, Julian, who was high up in UNESCO)

Anyone recall it said, in the '70s, that there were enough WMDs to destroy mankind 12.5 times over?

Is that progress to Utopia?

Or recall it said, in '85, that they could do that 70+ times over?

Is that progress to Utopia?

The mad scientists/politicos etc are still refining & producing more & morer powerful explosives - shoe bombs down planes & suicide belts destroy big cafes/clubs & suitcase bombs are like multiple Hiroshima bombs

Is that progress to Utopia?

As for biochems to poison all waters, scorch all plants & cause strange sores on men's bodies, & allow the sun to scorch men - all prophesied in the Bible..

Is that progress to Utopia?

In the Cold War, only USSR & USA could do M.A.D - (Mutually Assured Destruction) - polluting the planet in the process

Now almost any terrorist can find formulae for heavy duty WMD on the 'Net

So much change is notnot progress, but decadence

Take the individual level

Ever since the '60s, we have seen "The Me Generation"

Self improvement - aka the pursuit of happiness - is all: personal possessions, power, popularity & prestige have been the common pursuit of nearly everyone, yes?

Are we happier now than in the austerity of the '40s &' 50s?

Or even than the '30s Depression?

Surely the fruit of drunkenness, drug abuse, promiscuity, etc, are all too painfully obvious?

Is that proof of progress to Utopia?

I'm sure that many readers saw & heard interviews with old soldiers from World Wars 1 & 2 about how, despite the horrendous things they have suffered, there was much more sense of community, of neighbourly helping each other & looking out for each other in the hard times than now

How do you, personally, plan to maximise your potential & find true fulfilment?

MMM

Man's Maker's Manual, the Bible, is the best possible guide

It's because most folk ignore it that life on Earth teeters on the brink of self destruction

Many, in many threads on this board, have played the numbers game

But following the crod = following a bunch of lemmings, headed full speed towards the Abyss

If all 6 billion finite humans said 1 thing, & Almighty God said the opposite, who would you believe?

Jesus said, "If you are ashamed og Me & My words, I will be ashamed of you - if you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father in Heaven"

Must go!

Ian

 

[Jet Black]

Happy Tuesday everybody!

(That's a special hi to Jet Black: hilarious profie, dude!)

thanks

It made me realise that I left Bible College the year you were born - interdenominational & international evangelical 1, so, yes, I do realise that many even born-again Christians believe in theistic evolution

nothing existed before I was born.....

I've twice got agreement from evolutiomnists that if Darwin were right, evolution from 1 species-to-another-to another would still go on

this is what we both expect and observe.

So am I right in saying that you also expect it to continue?

That you view all change as progress?

well it's change, though it is difficult to say if it is progress or not. many evolutionary strands are arms races. both sides get better and better in one sense, but often neither side wins the arms race. so while they may both be faster/more poisonous, their prey might also be faster or have better antidotes, and the predators still only catch as much as they did before.

I can't resist asking if you realise that X-Men, 1 & 2, are pure fiction?

That the voice-over about, "sometimes evolution takes sudden/giant leaps forward!" is also pure fiction??

it is a horrible misrepresentation of evolution. I wish they hadn't said that. no scientists expect that kind of thing to happen, but then, that is why it is in a marvel comic. but remember that "comics aren't real" and fortunately relatively few people think they are.

none of the rest is even remotely related to evolution so I will skip it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Don't you ever sleep or work? I come on the thread and when I am ready to leave, you have already posted a reply and I don't want to be rude and make you wait, but I have to go sometimes and deal with other things. Ah to have such a life of leisure! (I'm just teasing, please don't string me up just yet)

again, evolution says absolutely no different, though speciations will occur and characters may become so derived as to make the new version completely differnt to the old version, so much so that one would not trivially consider them the same. (if an alien came to earth today, would he really think that Great Danes and Chihuauas shared a recent common ancestor, without doing extensive tests?) The difference is the backwards difference. evolution predicts that intermediates between the different species will be found (and they are) it predicts that there will be a whole host of other similarities, which I have gone over already.

Ahh, the alien, no one has said what they think of my alien cloning theory and how it fits the data, does that mean that it is a good theory or a bad one. Oh well, on to the issue at hand. My previous post addressed much of this issue and since I am running low on time I would ask that you consider it then if you still have questions as to what I hold to, please feel free to ask.

really? then what do you consider the theropod, cetacean and human lineages then? even the therapsid lineage is highly significant in that it shows directly a whole host of intermediate mammalian-reptillian features (including a creature which simultaneously had a mammalian and a reptillian jaw) and what is more, these lineages match up extremely well with the genetic record, both in a quantitative and qualitative sense.

I have also read reports that suggest falsification or fraud as it were of the data. Now if everytime the C have evidence to support there claims, it is considered fraud, I wonder why we should believe the data that supports E without first examining it to see if it is fraudulant? I am not saying that it is not possible, only that the data presented is inconclusive. inconclusive data leaves room for other theories does it not?

conflicting reports? I am not aware that anyone is really researching it with vigour anymore. the creationists might have a bit of a try, but given that they cannot even define a kind yet, they have no clue how many organisms were on board the ark, or for that matter how much evolution was required post-landfall. bear in mind that there are a number of cultures which were recording things for the past 6000 years, and there seems to be remarkably little in the way of mentions of rapidly changing animals. Creationist attepts at baraminology are laughable, and when they try something such as characterising the ancestry of the primates using humans as an ourgroup, their results fail miserably.

As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence. BTW, how large of an area would be required to house three forth of the known species of animals, (by two's), over three forths of the animal species known are insects, how much room do they take up? source The Handy Bug Answer Book.

 

[Arikay]

mrversatile48: You seem to be confusing objects with intentions.
An explosive is an explosive is an explosive. Its the person that makes it deadly or useful.

Just the same, you seem to be blaming science for the bad actions of people. In europe they took away guns, do people still kill each other? I don't think it was the guns that were forcing people to kill, and to blame them for murder is a logical fallacy.

However, since you seem to be saying science hasn't helped anyone, maybe you should talk to people who live longer thanks to cancer research, or handicapped people who can live a better life through technology, etc. If you are going to personify science and blame it for death, you might as well thank it for life.

And notice, we had the weapons to destroy the world, yet we are still here.

 

[gluadys]

It would seem that you are reading into my belief a bit, I am not saying that it is possible for one cell to evolve into all the species we have today, rather what I am saying is that a mastif and a yorky are both dogs and are decendant from dogs. The variations come from inbreeding, not crossing species lines. To cross species lines would means, a cat being from the species of dog. This is not proven by any means that I currently know of and is theory based on the possibility that science has observed. So it the possibility that species lines are not crossed. Thus both are theories. A mastif and a yorky, are subspecies of a bigger group called species, as I understand clasifications. Am I missing something important here?

You are right in observing that a yorky and a mastif are both dogs and could both be descendants of a single dog species.

You are right in observing that among currently living species, cats are one species and dogs another. In fact cats and dogs are in different taxonomic families. So of course, a cat will not give birth to a dog or vice versa. Evolution predicts speciation. It does not predict the sudden appearance of a whole new taxonomic category in a single generation or even in a few generations.

What you are missing is history. Go back in time to when there were neither dogs nor cats. When the mammalian carnivores of the time were quite different from the animals we see today.

Could cats and dogs have originated as "sub-species" of a mammalian carnivore which is now extinct, just as yorkies and mastifs both originated from a single dog species, and Persians and Siamese both originated from a single cat species. (Or to take a future-oriented view, could you see yorkies and mastifs becoming different species under the right circumstances?)

If not, why not?

 

[gluadys]

Again, that would depend on the definition of species. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that a salamander can viably sustain a mutation that would produce an offspring vastly different from itself.

Indeed it can't. Remember speciation means a new species, not a new genus or order. The new species will always be closely related to, and very much like the parent species. It would take a sequence of many, many, many speciations to increase the difference between an ancestor and a descendant species to the point where they belonged in different taxonomic categories.

Remember that fuzzyness in the definition of species. To falsify C on the grounds that that line is fuzzy, grossly steps of the line of the scientific methodology we have discussed earlier. Instead, it suggests more discussion as to defining species on both side, not just one.

What good would that do, when it is nature that is the source of the fuzziness---not our inability to describe species?

In fact, one of the reasons I doubt this species change, is because of the adaptabilty of animals to their environment.

Without evolution there would be no adaptability.

To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and
b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).

The result will be a change in the characteristics of the species over generations. That's evolution.

If the change is significant enough, it may lead to new species. Note that the process is evolution, whether or not it leads to new species.

But over time, it is pretty much inevitable that you will get new species through the accumulation of many changes.

I have heard here how E does not require a specific definition for species to be proven,

Sure it does. You can't show that speciation has occurred unless you have criteria for what is and is not a species. And in many cases we can say that a group is a species. It is only in borderline cases where things get fuzzy. Just as most of the time there is no question as to whether a colour is green or blue. But when you get to those in-between cases of greenish-blue or blue-green, it is not so easy to categorize them.

And having a better definition doesn't help, because the fault is not in the definition. The fuzziness is part of the reality of nature.

So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations.

It is not a matter of manipulating the data. (Manipulated data would have a hard time getting through peer review.)


Rather it is recognizing that it is nature itself that is creating the fuzzy species line.

And that TOE explains this reality; TOE expects the lines to be fuzzy, because if evolution is fact, the species lines must be fuzzy during the process of speciation.

I don't know if you are saying that creationism expects the species lines to be clear-cut. But if it does, its expectations are not supported by observation.

 

[gluadys]

Hi, Mrversatile,

You are covering a lot of bases. I'll respond only to those that are pertinent to biological evolution.

I've twice got agreement from evolutiomnists that if Darwin were right, evolution from 1 species-to-another-to another would still go on -(which again brings us to the millions of missing links - @ every supposed step/stage

So..

am I right in saying that you also expect it to continue?

Yes.

That you view all change as progress?

No. And this is a very important point as biological evolution has often been misrepresented as a "ladder of progress". It is not.

Evolution is change in a species PERIOD.

The change is not necessarily progress, it is not necessarily in the direction of greater complexity (often less complexity makes for better adapatation or fitness). Changes can even reverse themselves: producing new limbs in one generation (fish to tetrapods) and discarding them in another (tetrapod reptiles to snakes).

Evolution more often follows a "branching pattern" than a "ladder" pattern. Which leaf on a tree has made more "progress" than other leaves?

That the voice-over about, "sometimes evolution takes sudden/giant leaps forward!" is also pure fiction??

Good, you know that! Another very important point to remember. Even when evolution is happening in a hurry, it is still happening with lots of fast, little steps, not a few big leaps.

 

[razzelflabben]

You are right in observing that a yorky and a mastif are both dogs and could both be descendants of a single dog species.

You are right in observing that among currently living species, cats are one species and dogs another. In fact cats and dogs are in different taxonomic families. So of course, a cat will not give birth to a dog or vice versa. Evolution predicts speciation. It does not predict the sudden appearance of a whole new taxonomic category in a single generation or even in a few generations.

What you are missing is history. Go back in time to when there were neither dogs nor cats. When the mammalian carnivores of the time were quite different from the animals we see today.

What historical accounts are we relying on that say there was a time when there were neither dogs nor cats. The amount of fossil records currently exposed, by the shear volume are inconclusive evidence. In order for there to be conclusive evidence, we would have to 1. have eye witness accounts, which is impossible due to the presumption that man did not exist at that time either, or 2. we would have had to had examined the vast majority of fossil remains, in and of itself an impossible task. Therefore the idea that dogs and cats have never existed in our ancient world, is an unproven theory. So to clear things up from the start, this is an assumption based on theory.

Could cats and dogs have originated as "sub-species" of a mammalian carnivore which is now extinct, just as yorkies and mastifs both originated from a single dog species, and Persians and Siamese both originated from a single cat species. (Or to take a future-oriented view, could you see yorkies and mastifs becoming different species under the right circumstances?)

If not, why not?

It is possible, however, I highly doubt this to be the case. Remember when I said that the adaptability of animals to their environment is why I doubt that evidence will ever be found to support the evolution of animals crossing the species lines. In order for them to cross the species lines, it would be necessary for them to first be in the same family. If the animal/animals in that family needed to adapt in order to survive, they would have had built in mechanisms for survival. Even the TOE as I understand it, has this built in concept of survival of the fittest. By this theory, it would be just as likely for the animal family to have become extinct as it would have been possible for it to have evolved into new species. So is it possible, absolutely, I have never said that it was not possible, do I believe that it is the most likely senario. No, I think it is more likely that the species existed as seperate species from the beginning of creation. Do we currently know beyond reason, No which is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning of this thread, both are theories.

 

[Jet Black]

What historical accounts are we relying on that say there was a time when there were neither dogs nor cats. The amount of fossil records currently exposed, by the shear volume are inconclusive evidence.

well the fact that as we descend through the fossil record, the canidae fossils become less and less canid like.

 

[mrversatile48]

Don't you ever sleep or work? I come on the thread and when I am ready to leave, you have already posted a reply and I don't want to be rude and make you wait, but I have to go sometimes and deal with other things. Ah to have such a life of leisure! (I'm just teasing, please don't string me up just yet)
Ahh, the alien, no one has said what they think of my alien cloning theory and how it fits the data, does that mean that it is a good theory or a bad one. Oh well, on to the issue at hand. My previous post addressed much of this issue and since I am running low on time I would ask that you consider it then if you still have questions as to what I hold to, please feel free to ask.
I have also read reports that suggest falsification or fraud as it were of the data. Now if everytime the C have evidence to support there claims, it is considered fraud, I wonder why we should believe the data that supports E without first examining it to see if it is fraudulant? I am not saying that it is not possible, only that the data presented is inconclusive. inconclusive data leaves room for other theories does it not?
As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence. BTW, how large of an area would be required to house three forth of the known species of animals, (by two's), over three forths of the animal species known are insects, how much room do they take up? source The Handy Bug Answer Book.

Hi!

I'm fairly sure it awas Henry Morris, in Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood, who said that it had been calculated that all the species who needed to go on the Ark would fit into 1.5 decks, & the food needed for humans & animals fit on half a deck, leaving a full deck for Noah & his family

I now eagerly await all the jokes about me not playing with a full deck..

Oh: Arinak (?) - of course I'm grateful for medical advances etc

What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists, who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business, yet totally discount the unique wisdom, knowledge, integrity & power of Almighty God

I must away to the creation v evolution thread, where I know some hilarious posts wait my unique brand of attention..

Ian

 

[Jet Black]

What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists, who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business

erm, no we don't.