evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

But that would be giving up on having it taught in U.S. public school science classes, or otherwise getting it accepted as scientific. There are people who, for whatever reason, want the imprimatur of science on their religious beliefs.

quote:

---

Others propose a flood with the fossils sorted by the speed and climbing ability of the fossilized animals.

---

When creationists try to argue this point, I like to ask them if grasses and flowering plants also ran for high ground, because they are only ever found in the uppermost layers.

No, no. They were cut loose from the earth in sod packets by salt water tidal waves, then carried by those same tidal waves to the calm fresh water pools in which fresh water fish were surviving, nourished there, and then gently set down on the top layers after the tidal waves stopped.Surely that's obvious.

LOL!

Shoot, what a dope. That makes three AdminTL posts that were supposed to be truthlover posts.Given enough time, I could set a record here. I'm hoping that by pointing it out each time I do it, I'm reinforcing my attention to the matter so I'll STOP.

Heh. I was going to ask you about that TL. Then I realized that as a blind, brainwashed follower of the Vast Worldwide Evilutionist Conspiracy (tm), I would be violating the terms of my dogmatic ideological servitude contract to question the actions of a designated authority figure. [This message has been erased and completely re-written on a new topic by Quetzal, 03-03-2004][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-03-2004]

quote:

---

In any case, those interested can see Baumgardner's own web site for themselves.

---

Is it really Baumgardner's site? I think I have read some of the material and if it is, he refers to himself in the third person constantly. Here is some information on the globalflood.com domain name:SuperWHOIS Version 2.0.2.
Copyright (c) 2000-2003 Archetopia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.whois: globalflood.com
Authoritative whois at whois.joker.comdomain: globalflood.com
status: production
owner: Dennis Flood
email: floodmail@get2net.dk
address: Laessoeesgade 23, 5tv
city: Koebenhavn N
state: DK
postal-code: 2200
country: DK
admin-c: dns@domainhost.dk#1
tech-c: dns@domainhost.dk#1
billing-c: dns@domainhost.dk#1
nserver: ns1.cserver.dk
nserver: ns2.cserver.dk
registrar: JORE-1
created: 2000-12-12 05:25:52 UTC core
modified: 2003-12-07 17:48:28 UTC JORE-1
expires: 2004-12-12 05:25:52 UTC
source: joker.comdb-updated: 2004-03-06 01:31:46 UTCCheers,
-Chris Grose

The home page certainly gives the impression that it is Baumgardner's.It *is* written as if Baumgardner was the author - e.g.

Yes, it is obviously John Baumgardner's own page.The domain information you found may be related to Baumgardner's webmaster/technical support. The name "Dennis" does not appear on the pages at all that I can see. It is all Baumgardner, and largely written in the first person. There is some third person stuff; but this is not really unusual in describing your own background in professional style writing. Some bits could have been written by a webmaster, but John is clearly the driving force behind setting up this page.I have taken the title of this post from the description given right at the top of the main page of globalflood.com. The FAQ is set up with Baumgardner's email (baumgardner.atsymbol.globalflood.org) as the place to submit questions. The reason for the web site is given at The Age of the Earth index page (at the end of the page): Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

One would have to wonder why Baumgardner even bothers to develop a model. Simply declare the flood, plate tectonics and associated phenomena a miracle and be done with it. Why try to whittle it down to a small miracle when a large miracle is just as credible?

---

--Because I'm sure Baumgardner is aware that there is room for advancement. I find his geophysical work on CPT quite good.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

I, despite being a creationist, agree. There is so much misinformation. BUT... Both sides are biased. Both will distort information. One example is Kent Hovind. Another example is my biology textbook from last year (haha ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? my biology teacher even still believed that garbage). Obviously, Kent Hovind isn't completely useless, but I do think he gives a bad name to scientists who are seriously trying to prove that large scale evolution (ie. two species that are unable to reproduce, even by something like forced reproduction [implanting DNA in to an egg]) is invalid. Please be respectful and admit that some very talented people have some very good ideas on the creationist side. I must admit that it is the same for evolution.

Would you please post the title, author, publisher, and date of publication of that textbook? If there are indeed such errors in it, they will be corrected.

You're welcome to name them and their ideas. Since this is the education forum, I guess it would be appropriate to name Creationists whose work would qualify for inclusion in K-12 science classrooms.--Percy

I am pretty sure that it is the 1998 edition of the ever so popular (number one seller!) "Biology: The Dynamics of Life," published by McGraw-Hill and written by Alton Biggs![link]http://www7.tamu-commerce.edu/thepride/spring2002/pg7.htm[/link]From what I can remember, there is a figure depicting the similarities between embryos, but I cannot remember what they say about it. I can just remember telling my science teacher "No, we don't have gills when we are embryos, that's a lie," and him responding something like "well I do believe that there are alot of lies in evolution, but we do have gills as embryos!"This made me mad.Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku Online
Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku Online
Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku Online
Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku Online

Well, no, we never have structures that allow us to breathe water, but we do have pharyngeal pouches. Talk origins has this to say:

quote:

---

The pharyngeal pouches which appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos.

---

So, I guess my point is, you're both wrong.{Note from Adminnemooseus - There is also a "Gills" topic, at http://EvC Forum: Nuts! (gills again...) (Re: Human embryos have gills?) -->EvC Forum: Nuts! (gills again...) (Re: Human embryos have gills?)}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-25-2004]