If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Mallon]

That is completely untrue. Not true to any extent. Perhaps MACRO-evolution has been observed, but micro evolution has never, ever, ever been observed.

There you have it, folks. A creationist admitting to the occurrence of macroevolution. I guess the debate is over.

 

[KerrMetric]

A couple of days ago nolidad posted this:

Well then you should write JPL. OAk Ridge, many major universities, printing houses, awards commissions. For all YEC scientists are degreed scientists. Thjey chari departments in secular colleges, have received awards, patents, hav published textbooks used in secular colleges etc. etc. etc.

Be consistent--when an evolutionary biologist debates a YEC geologist and seeks to refute his geological claims will you call him not a scientist as well??

If you wish < i can post a listing of 100 YEC scientists, their degrees, awards approved publications, and work histories. No they are very bonafide scientistsa who have published numerous approved papers in theri major field of expertise. Now you are expressing peresonal desire without any facts to warrant it.

Notice the chairs of departments & major universites comments. And now we get this:

Well nearly all the scientists I listed are active in research, but the line was drawn that it doesn't count for much because they are not researching in "prestigious" univerisites or are nobel laureates.

Notice the not researching in "prestigious" universities comment. Which is it nolidad?
Of course my thread bursting your bubble probably had something to do with it.

And now we get the excuse quote based upon an appeal to conspiracy:

You have to understand something-- scientists who are YEC are not going to get many peer reviewed publications from the science population in general if the paper is inshowing why some facet of biological evolution or long ages is wrong! Reason-- the review boards are loaded with staunch evolutionists who think young ages is impossible. This is the reason why orgs like CRS, ICR et al are forming their own peer review panels. To make sure that the work being done is accurate and honest and that the research does not have fundamental flaws that would cause the conclusion to be in great error.

You have to remember evolution is considered incopntorvertible fact. So to challenge itwould be like an atheist going in to an evangelical church and dsaying " I have proof God doesn't exist". Just as the atheist will not get a reception for his concept-- so won't a scientist with info saying long ages and evolutrion is wrong not receive an impartial review in secular science.

The fact is these guys don't do research or if they do it is totally unrelated. They are not at major reseach universities. Not a single oe is a chair of a department at a major university. Not a single one of the active Creationists does applicable work, not a single one submits applicable work to the journals, in fact almost all of them have never performed any work in an applicable area at any time. Those that have did work decades ago at best and also seem to be very quiet by publishig no Creationist work either. Many of them are professional Creationists working for Creationist groups.

By any normal academic definition of the word these guys are not scientists in the key disciplines relating to the Creation/Evolution/Old Earth debate.

 

[random_guy]

Well nearly all the scientists I listed are active in research, but the line was drawn that it doesn't count for much because they are not researching in "prestigious" univerisites or are nobel laureates.

You have to understand something-- scientists who are YEC are not going to get many peer reviewed publications from the science population in general if the paper is inshowing why some facet of biological evolution or long ages is wrong! Reason-- the review boards are loaded with staunch evolutionists who think young ages is impossible. This is the reason why orgs like CRS, ICR et al are forming their own peer review panels. To make sure that the work being done is accurate and honest and that the research does not have fundamental flaws that would cause the conclusion to be in great error.

You have to remember evolution is considered incopntorvertible fact. So to challenge itwould be like an atheist going in to an evangelical church and dsaying " I have proof God doesn't exist". Just as the atheist will not get a reception for his concept-- so won't a scientist with info saying long ages and evolutrion is wrong not receive an impartial review in secular science.

This is not true. Everytime a paper is rejected, you will receive a letter explaining the reasons why the the paper was rejected. It would be extremely easy to tell if the editors were biased by reading the letter. Can you show that the Creationist scientists have been submitting papers to peer reviewed journals by producing the rejection letters?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I have often heard rumors about research that was rejected by major scientific journals because it went against the "dogma of evolution". So where are all these rejected papers then. Why don't YEC's have a publication of their own. Research money could come from all those churches that reject evolution and tithe thier patrons. Heck, all these papers could even be put on the internet for all to see and evaluate.

Give me just one such paper

 

[KerrMetric]

They do have a journal - Creation ex Nihilo unless they have changed its name.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is not true. Everytime a paper is rejected, you will receive a letter explaining the reasons why the the paper was rejected. It would be extremely easy to tell if the editors were biased by reading the letter. Can you show that the Creationist scientists have been submitting papers to peer reviewed journals by producing the rejection letters?

can you imagine what a propaganda coup it would be for AiG to post all these rejection notices on their website?

prominently displayed with the label
"rejected by the atheistic materialistic anti-God university for being not in adherence to their continuing standards of materialist and naturalistic paradigms."
then post the letter.

cool.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

What would happen if an evolutionist attemtped to publish a paper in Creationist ex Nihilo? Would the editors be biased or ojbective. Would they out and out reject a paper that supported evolutionary theory without even reading it?

 

[Willtor]

Well, let's be specific about what we're asking for. Let's ask for both the paper and the rejection letter. I have this image in my head of 12 year olds trying to submit "scholarly" papers and sending their rejection letters to AiG.

Addendum: maybe "12 year old" is too far fetched. But someone like Ken Ham, anyway.

 

[Scholar in training]

What reasons would Moses have to inflate or make upo the genealogies of Genesis? Tell me that, please give me an answer to this question: why would moses be untrue about the genealogies?

Is it possible that the genealogies had some people missing intentionally to fit the purpose/focus of the author?

 

[Mallon]

What would happen if an evolutionist attemtped to publish a paper in Creationist ex Nihilo? Would the editors be biased or ojbective. Would they out and out reject a paper that supported evolutionary theory without even reading it?

Probably. Usually before submitting a paper, you have to sign a document saying you denounce evolution and take the Bible as literal truth. Certainly, it's that way with CRSQ.

 

[nolidad]

Kerr Metric writes:

Notice the not researching in "prestigious" universities comment. Which is it nolidad?
Of course my thread bursting your bubble probably had something to do with it.

I am surprised you didn't recognize this post as dripping with sarcasm at your earlier post questioning how many of them had degrees from "prestigious" which by the way I know of many universities considered "prestigious" but what is your criteria ?

Many of them are professional Creationists working for Creationist groups.

As oppossed to professional evolutionists working for evolutionary groups.

The fact is these guys don't do research or if they do it is totally unrelated. They are not at major reseach universities. Not a single oe is a chair of a department at a major university.

The fact is these guys don't do research or if they do it is totally unrelated. They are not at major reseach universities. Not a single oe is a chair of a department at a major university.

So only "major" universities now count?

Those that have did work decades ago at best and also seem to be very quiet by publishig no Creationist work either.

Well go to ICR and click on the links showing ongoing research and see how big a deception your statemetn here is!!

Those that have did work decades ago at best and also seem to be very quiet by publishig no Creationist work either.

Y9ou only say this because you don't bother with creationist research but prefer to get your info from talkorigins.org.

By any normal academic definition of the word these guys are not scientists in the key disciplines relating to the Creation/Evolution/Old Earth debate.

Well then if microbiology, astrophysics, genetics, physiology, zoology, botany, anthropology, physics, geology, hydrology (or hydrodynamics) , chemistry are not major disciplines in the debate---please please tell us what are the major disciplines.

BTW:

As you have set these standards to judge creaton scientists I ask the folloowing questions of you and your wife:

1. Did you get your doctorate from a "prestigious" university well noted for your field of astrophysics and your wifes' microbiology?

2. Are you currently engaged in resesarch relating to origins (wife also)?

3. Have you had any peer reviewed publications credited to you on origins of the universe??

4. are you and your wife nobel laureates? Have you ever been nominaterd for a nobel?

5. HAve you received any of the awards granted in yoru field for excellence in research?

Without giving info as to reveal your identity I think if you are going to be so critical of other scientists in these areasd -- we need to make sure you yourself are "qualified" to even speak of such standards.

They do have a journal - Creation ex Nihilo unless they have changed its name.

that is one of several journals

Random guy writes:

This is not true. Everytime a paper is rejected, you will receive a letter explaining the reasons why the the paper was rejected. It would be extremely easy to tell if the editors were biased by reading the letter. Can you show that the Creationist scientists have been submitting papers to peer reviewed journals by producing the rejection letters?

Well not being the librarian for the manuscripts of the vreationists, I don't know how many or ho wtrhey were. My advice to you is to email CRS chapters or ICR and ask the question to the scientists directly.


Along these lines it is interesting to note that several "pretigious" creation orgs, are getting ot gether to have creationists submit their researcvh for peer review. The RATE seminar is ine such reviewed research work.

The Lady Kate writes:

What reason do we have to believe that Moses himself wrote those geneologies?

Well rest asured Moses himself did not write the geneologies found in early genesis. He was the compiler of the info and thus the editor of these geneologies which were written by the varied authors found iin the chapters.

Late cretaceous writes:

What would happen if an evolutionist attemtped to publish a paper in Creationist ex Nihilo? Would the editors be biased or ojbective. Would they out and out reject a paper that supported evolutionary theory without even reading it?

No they would read it and show why it is wrong without rejecting it as did many peer boards did for creationist work. I have read from men who have had their work returned w/o comment on it. Take that for what it is worth. When evolutrionary boards do read creationist material-- it is to establish why it is all wrong. talkorigin has made it clear that any work rejecting "macroevolution" or long ages as established by radio dating theories or any work attackoing foundational premises of evolution are considered "not science", but faith trying ot masquerade as science.

gluadys writes:

But the black man is black because his ancestors developed and conserved mutations to produce more than average quantities of melanin and the white woman is white because her ancestors developed and conserved mutations that suppressed the production of melanin.

And you can prove these variations in color are the results of mutation how????

It is not a lie because God did not inspire the author to give a science lesson; God inspired the author to impress on his hearers why it is important to keep the Sabbath.

so you wre there when God spoke to Adam??? Wow I am impressed. So He impressed upon the author about keeping the Sabbath by relating a tale that is completely untrue! He said He created the world in six days but He didn't but He said He did so He could instruct His people to keep a commandment (while He was breaking another one). Sorry but that doesn't wash! You are just imposding your opinion onto a situation that happened over 4,000 years ago.

That it is the only known way to insert an new allele into a genome. Even AiG will confirm that for you.

Well we are not talking about how mutations get into the genome-- we are talking about proving it was a mutation and not already pre-exisiting code! A naturalistic look requires all these mutations cause they reject supernatural intervention but a realistic outlook recognizes supernatural intervention on the lanet and the fact that after th eflood-- variation flourished on the earth without mutation.

 

[nolidad]

Addendum: maybe "12 year old" is too far fetched. But someone like Ken Ham, anyway.

Shucks and I though tyou were talking about, Eldridge, or Gould, or Goldschmidt. or Johansen, or even Haeckel from the turn of the century or even Hawkins!!

Scholar writes:

Is it possible that the genealogies had some people missing intentionally to fit the purpose/focus of the author?

Well their are theoriesd that the geneological lists are incomplete and missing names, but teh evidence is very circumstantial.

As trot eh geneologies listed for Jesus--one is Marys and trhe other list is JOsephs side. Excellent work on this by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum at www.ariel.org. as to why the 2 differing geneologies and what they mean.

 

[KerrMetric]

I am surprised you didn't recognize this post as dripping with sarcasm at your earlier post questioning how many of them had degrees from "prestigious" which by the way I know of many universities considered "prestigious" but what is your criteria

You used the word major I used prestigious, I consider these somewhat synonymous. In my eyes take the US News & World report top 100 graduate schools and add in the equivalents around the world. i..e not Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee or some S. Oklahoma Calvary Baptist nonsense.
Where are the Harvard, Yale, Caltech, Michigan, Texas, level of schools in the US. Where are the Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College schools in the UK. ANU or Melbourne in Australia? How come the Creationists don't have a single example working at these level of schools?

Instead we find them working for ICR, working for industry or teaching at some podunk useless Bible school? And on top of that no research comes out of them. This is a mismatch of the highest order. A few faith driven (i.e. conclusion first) clown "scientists" versus the real scientific community.

As oppossed to professional evolutionists working for evolutionary groups.

No such delineation in science.

So only "major" universities now count?

For the most part that is where real science is performed.

Well go to ICR and click on the links showing ongoing research

What research? A literature search and a written polemic don't cout as research. Would you tell me where a Creationist observatory is located? A Creationist microbiology lab with DNA sequencers? A Creationist radiodating facility? Where are they?

You only say this because you don't bother with creationist research but prefer to get your info from talkorigins.org.

This is why I know I am talking to someone ill prepared for such a debate and just completely not tuned into science.

I haven't been on TalkOrigins more than a few times in my life. I judge the Creationist rubbish based upon their own merits. You aren't talking to some TalkOrigin cut/paster here like you guys are invariably ICR/AIG cut/pasters. I'm the real deal. I do science for a living and have my entire life since I enrolled in Kings College in 1978 for undergraduate.

Remember the difference nolidad, you read websites I actually do the work. that alone is a big difference, believe it or not.

Well then if microbiology, astrophysics, genetics, physiology, zoology, botany, anthropology, physics, geology, hydrology (or hydrodynamics) , chemistry are not major disciplines in the debate---please please tell us what are the major disciplines.

Look at the research they do. Their college majors is immaterial though hydraulic engineering and animal husbandry are a joke in this context. Very few of them are biologists, geologists, physicists and astronomers and even the ones who are/were do not work in a area of those disciplines directly related to this debate.

Where are the cosmologists or stellar physicists.
Where are the biologists working in developmental biology, genomic studies or taxonomy?
Where are the geophysicists/geologists? (not a programmer like Baumgardner)

As you have set these standards to judge creaton scientists

These are not my standards per se but pretty much science community standards. You can either do the work or get off the pot!

I ask the folloowing questions of you and your wife:
1. Did you get your doctorate from a "prestigious" university well noted for your field of astrophysics and your wifes' microbiology?

Yes. We met at Harvard. She was at medical school I was a post doctoral researcher.

2. Are you currently engaged in resesarch relating to origins (wife also)?

Yes. I work in modelling the formation of gas giant planets and their evolution as well as planetary atmospheric physics. She is a virologist (she did a PhD after medical school to get into research.)

3. Have you had any peer reviewed publications credited to you on origins of the universe??

Yes sort of. I used to work in stellar modelling and I did work on the formation of the first stars in the Universe.

4. are you and your wife nobel laureates? Have you ever been nominaterd for a nobel?

No.

5. Have you received any of the awards granted in yoru field for excellence in research?

Yes.

Without giving info as to reveal your identity I think if you are going to be so critical of other scientists in these areasd -- we need to make sure you yourself are "qualified" to even speak of such standards.

Actually I disagree because these are not my standards. Ask others on here with some science experience I did nothing but list what most researching scientists would consider fair criteria.

 

[gluadys]

And you can prove these variations in color are the results of mutation how????

Because no matter what colour your skin is it is the same genes that produce (or don't produce) the melanin that darkens skin colour. And since both the bible and science agree that all humans have the same ancestry, the only way they could get different skin colours is if those genes were modified over the generations---and modified differently in different groups.

If there had been no changes in the genes, we would all have the same skin colour.

Unless you want to go back to the racist 19th century theory that not all humans have the same ancestors, but that there were separate special creations of each racial group.

so you wre there when God spoke to Adam??? Wow I am impressed. So He impressed upon the author about keeping the Sabbath by relating a tale that is completely untrue!

God did not relate the tale. He inspired the author to write a story.

Well we are not talking about how mutations get into the genome-- we are talking about proving it was a mutation and not already pre-exisiting code!

No we have not gone into the origin of mutations. Just the fact that they do occur. The point is that when you have two or more versions of a gene (and in some cases a gene exists in hundreds of different versions), there must have been a mutation from the original version--the pre-existing code--to get to the other version (s).

A naturalistic look requires all these mutations cause they reject supernatural intervention but a realistic outlook recognizes supernatural intervention on the lanet

No, that is quite irrelevant. As noted above, we have only been looking at the fact that mutations occur. Not at how they get into the genome. Remember "mutation" means "change". Genetic mutations are changes in the original genetic code. This is true no matter what caused the change. Copying error during replication, impact of radiation, super-natural intervention.

If God directly changes a genetic code by super-natural intervention, the change is still a mutation.

and the fact that after th eflood-- variation flourished on the earth without mutation.

So your contention is that variation occurred with no changes in the genetic code? How then did it occur?

And why is it that organisms which display variations show matching differences in their genes? If variations occur without such genetic changes, why do the genetic differences exist? And why do they correlate with the variations?

 

[random_guy]

Well not being the librarian for the manuscripts of the vreationists, I don't know how many or ho wtrhey were. My advice to you is to email CRS chapters or ICR and ask the question to the scientists directly.


Along these lines it is interesting to note that several "pretigious" creation orgs, are getting ot gether to have creationists submit their researcvh for peer review. The RATE seminar is ine such reviewed research work.

Yeah, but you're the one claiming that there's an evolutionist conspiracy that prevents Creationists from publishing in their journals. You make the claim, you back it up. The thing is, I already know the answer, as do other scientists.

Creationists almost never (I've never seen any evidence, but there may be a letter or two somewhere) send their papers to scientific journals. This is because they already know that what they do would never pass scientific peer review.

Creationists might have their own journals, but the difference between a Creationist peer review journal and a scientific journal is about as wide is a random blog on the internet vs. the BBC. How many Creationists journals are backed by colleges, universities, etc...? Which journals do you think the scientists that belong to the National Academt of Sciences publish in (one of the most prestigious science groups, currently with 2000 members, 200 of which have Nobel prizes)?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KerrMetric again.

 

[nolidad]

Instead we find them working for ICR, working for industry or teaching at some podunk useless Bible school? And on top of that no research comes out of them. This is a mismatch of the highest order. A few faith driven (i.e. conclusion first) clown "scientists" versus the real scientific community.

YAWN !!! Wow you really don't do much reading of Christian scientists. If you looked at the Christian Journals ( I know that is a major faux pas for you) you would find them involved in much research, but because they do not do it to match your clique of "acceptable places" it doesn't count! Wow back inthe 60's you must have been a big fan of segregation based on the attitude you have here.

No such delineation in science.

Well of course not because to the ones who control behind the scenes--if you do not beleive in evolution you aren't a competent scientist!! I find it truly amazing that we have gone on here this far bantering back and forth over the scientists who know YEC is the thruth! A commnet was made that someone considered them not real scientists, I posted evidence to prove that wrong.

Then they aren't publishing, and I prove that wrong! Then they don't come from "prestigious" enough universities. Well if I get the time I am sure I can find a few who got their diploma form a school that matcvhes your "impeccable" standard of which colleges produce "real" scientists (wow when Christians talk like that we are hammered as being intolerant!!)

Then th ey aren't doing "enough" research- and that is just plain stupidly wrong!! But because it doesn't lead them to evolution-- it is podunk!! God forbid they go work in industry and use their trainign to advance mankinds lot--what selfish beasts these YEC scientists are!!!! Go teach children??? Hang them from the highest yard arms!!!

For the most part that is where real science is performed.

Only to benighted arrogant souls. But hten again don't tell that to all the researchers in industry where real science is going on--they would probably look at you and laugh at your ignorance of reality.

What research? A literature search and a written polemic don't cout as research. Would you tell me where a Creationist observatory is located? A Creationist microbiology lab with DNA sequencers? A Creationist radiodating facility? Where are they?

From where I sit and based on yoru attitude to bible believing Christians, I understand you would rather sit there and just hurl your insults and when shown contrary evidence just move the goalposts, but why don't you just simply email them???

Look at the research they do. Their college majors is immaterial though hydraulic engineering and animal husbandry are a joke in this context. Very few of them are biologists, geologists, physicists and astronomers and even the ones who are/were do not work in a area of those disciplines directly related to this debate.

They would beg to differ, but your response is unsurprising.

Where are the cosmologists or stellar physicists.
Where are the biologists working in developmental biology, genomic studies or taxonomy?
Where are the geophysicists/geologists? (not a programmer like Baumgardner)

Go back to the list and surprise your self.

Look at the research they do. Their college majors is immaterial though hydraulic engineering and animal husbandry are a joke in this context.

The why is their work attacked by folks such as your self--especially on talkorigins

I haven't been on TalkOrigins more than a few times in my life.

Well my bad!! I could take many of your answers and finds them on talkorigins. You sound and write just like them.

Yes sort of. I used to work in stellar modelling and I did work on the formation of the first stars in the Universe.

Well did you or did you not!! Sort of is not a real answr to that simple question.

Yes. We met at Harvard. She was at medical school I was a post doctoral researcher.

So what "prestigious" university did you get your masters and doctorate from??

I'm the real deal. I do science for a living and have my entire life since I enrolled in Kings College in 1978 for undergraduate

Out of curiosity--which Kings college?? There are several.

Yes. I work in modelling the formation of gas giant planets and their evolution as well as planetary atmospheric physics.

Well that is nice--too bad you can't see the forest for the trees though!!!

I would suspect that if I could dig up some YEC scientist swho have won nobel prizes or were giants int heir field of science you would find some problem with them and move the goal post again to somehow besmirch their talents and contributions. If they beleive in YEC they will always be "less" than you.

 

[random_guy]

Well of course not because to the ones who control behind the scenes--if you do not beleive in evolution you aren't a competent scientist!! I find it truly amazing that we have gone on here this far bantering back and forth over the scientists who know YEC is the thruth! A commnet was made that someone considered them not real scientists, I posted evidence to prove that wrong.

Then they aren't publishing, and I prove that wrong! Then they don't come from "prestigious" enough universities. Well if I get the time I am sure I can find a few who got their diploma form a school that matcvhes your "impeccable" standard of which colleges produce "real" scientists (wow when Christians talk like that we are hammered as being intolerant!!)

I think you keep missing the point. What scientific papers have they published that supports YECism or Creationism? A scientist's belief doesn't prevent him from doing bad science as long as his beliefs are not injected into the experiments. For example, I work with people who believe in Aliens, as portrayed in tv (visit Earth to probe us). However, he still does good science research.

These scientists listed either don't publish very many papers, or if they do, none of them support Creationism or YECism.

I would suspect that if I could dig up some YEC scientist swho have won nobel prizes or were giants int heir field of science you would find some problem with them and move the goal post again to somehow besmirch their talents and contributions. If they beleive in YEC they will always be "less" than you.

Again, there could be a YECist Nobelist, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what research and papers have they published in academic journals.

 

[Scholar in training]

Well their are theoriesd that the geneological lists are incomplete and missing names, but teh evidence is very circumstantial.

I don't think so. The question is examined with a method similar to scriptura scripturam interpretar. We look at the other parts of the Gospel in question or other writings by the author to determine why he may have left out some names. In St. Luke's case, we know that a focus of his was universality of the Gospel. That's why his genealogy linked back to Adam.

I believe this interpretation is more viable than saying that Matthew and Luke simply had no access to the names or that they left them out for some other reason. This is actually quite a bad position for the Christian to hold, because if the Apostles could not trace Jesus' lineage back to David, then how could it have been established that Jesus fulfilled that Messianic prophecy?

As trot eh geneologies listed for Jesus--one is Marys and trhe other list is JOsephs side.

It's possible that this is the case, and that the authors still left out names from both lineages.

Excellent work on this by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum at www.ariel.org. as to why the 2 differing geneologies and what they mean.

That site is a little difficult to navigate; do you know the exact URL of the page that discusses the genealogies?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KerrMetric again.

I tried to rep him for you, but it's a no go. The rep Nazis got to me first.

 

[nolidad]

gluadys writes:

God did not relate the tale. He inspired the author to write a story.

And your proof of this wild ideas is??? Sorry but you weren't there--Adam was--He walked and talked with God in that mythical garden--He recorded it and Moses wqas inspired to include it. YOu are free to you ropinion but I am more interested in the Word of God for my soul, not the words of gluadys.

Unless you want to go back to the racist 19th century theory that not all humans have the same ancestors, but that there were separate special creations of each racial group.

Nah I didn't buy it when the secularists first broached that idea and I don't buy it now!

Because no matter what colour your skin is it is the same genes that produce (or don't produce) the melanin that darkens skin colour. And since both the bible and science agree that all humans have the same ancestry, the only way they could get different skin colours is if those genes were modified over the generations---and modified differently in different groups.

Unless of course that information was already imprinted int eh genome of mankind and when God dispersed the peoples at Babel- The sub species came out because of the traits preimplanted by God! EEks but that would require divine intervention and that is a capital offense to some of you folks

No we have not gone into the origin of mutations. Just the fact that they do occur. The point is that when you have two or more versions of a gene (and in some cases a gene exists in hundreds of different versions), there must have been a mutation from the original version--the pre-existing code--to get to the other version (s).

Or there must not have been and God had the codes implanted there all the time!! At least I can go back and find plausible causation for my theory-- you resort to "well there just must have been a mutation" (I paraphrased) Well prove the "must of".

No, that is quite irrelevant. As noted above, we have only been looking at the fact that mutations occur.

If this were the case we would have ended along time ago. I Agree mutation occurs. It happens all the time and is readily observable. What we are debating is the "fact" mutation is proven beyond doubt to cause speciation.

Genetic mutations are changes in the original genetic code. This is true no matter what caused the change. Copying error during replication, impact of radiation, super-natural intervention.

Well I would need to know what you mean by change. If by that you refer to recombining preexisting codsert o produce a variation-- this is not true mutation ( unless of course the definition has been altered to include any change). But even given that-- explain how they rule out prexisting info that has surfaced where it lied recessive in previous generations??

So your contention is that variation occurred with no changes in the genetic code? How then did it occur?

Well I could give you theory and hypothesis and plausible weorking models, but that is all they are because we weren't there to know for sure and God has not boomed from heaven to say for sure!!

Well I am saying that if info is not added or subtracted but existing info is just made evident when it wasn't before (like my crude example of skin colors) these asre not true mutations but just existing information that may h ave been recessed now becoming dominant agian or for the first time even. Once again if changes are made ina mouse that werre already encoded genetically, you have not mutated the mouse, but if new informatiuon is added that was not there or existing information is deleted-that is mutation.

Random guy writes:

Creationists almost never (I've never seen any evidence, but there may be a letter or two somewhere) send their papers to scientific journals. This is because they already know that what they do would never pass scientific peer review.

Gee that is what I just said!!! Any research paper submitted that calls into question long ages or the foundational principle of evolution-- will not be reviewed but returned w/ comment!! This has been proven for years!! So do you wonder why they do not submit to the secular review boards and have been establishing their own ppeer review boards?? ( as is prove n by the critical exam of Humphreys work and the objections of somewo f his research). We all know that secular and TE science will accept tinklering around with the maechanics of evolution (ala the debate betweeen uniformitarianism and say punctuated equillibria schools of thought) but to attack the premise of evolution and billions of years is secular blasphemy. You know it, I know it so we should be honest in this.

Creationists might have their own journals, but the difference between a Creationist peer review journal and a scientific journal is about as wide is a random blog on the internet vs. the BBC. How many Creationists journals are backed by colleges, universities, etc...?

This is a bogus argument from the get go! Any school that beleived in YEC is considered "podunk" by Kerr Metric and his cohorts so they would be considered irrelevant. Govt. forbids direct funding of creation science as it is considered "religious" and thus broaches the nonexistent constitutional separation of church and state. If Creationists could get the funding like the evolutionists get-- you would be amazed at the amount of amazing research they would crank out!!! Remember ICR was the first scientists on scene and presented articles for review and publication on MT. St. Helens and its aftermath.

Which journals do you think the scientists that belong to the National Academt of Sciences publish in (one of the most prestigious science groups, currently with 2000 members, 200 of which have Nobel prizes)?

do you honestly think that any YEC scientist that produces empirical data trashing some philosphy of evolution and long ages (say like the RATE work disproving radio dating as a relaible chronomter) would ever be nominated fro a nobel prize?? Especially seeing as the nominating committeesare p[acke dwith men that beleive evolution and long ages are irrefutable facts?? If you do I have some land in southern Florida to sell you !!!! The YEC /scientists know this truth, accept it, rejoice in it and continue to expand on creation. They like me answer to higher authoritiy than HArvard, or UCLA or Stamford, or any "prestigious" university.