Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:
That's silly, Mark...

​

If TB is retreating to relative mobility to explain Equidae, then TB's frantic hand-waving has finally unhinged his reasoning ability. I say that not because relative mobility in a Flood is a silly idea (although it is), but because TB has pegged the end of the Flood at the K-T boundary! All his Equidae are post-Flood variation in only a few thousand years - evolution faster than any observed. He has totally forgotten how his own model (fails to) fit together.

---

Ooop!------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

John I think existing surveys bear my statements out but I agree a carefully worded survey would be needed to find the precise answer.I never said the evidence fro a higher intelligence was concusive, just that it is a possibility and is evident to many.

EdgeYou simply can't image a catastrophic flood. The global flood occurred in stages. It was global by the end of it. We use the same data you use to show that there were surges!The sea-level curves are due primarily to tectonics (not that anyone has a deterministic model as far as I have found). The data actually looks like it was due to plate slipping events. Either way you and I explain the water coming and going the same way - it's just that in our scheme we have much more heat and lower viscosities to drive rapid tectonics.

TazWe explain the fossil record as having formed due to biogeography, differential mobility and hydrodynamic sorting - all of whihc would be expected to order according to homology to some exent. They are 3 very different issues and together with a detailed flood model we would expect that the known fossil record to emerge. The gross ordering of marine, lowland and mobile animals in the record is in argeement with expectations.Although we agree that the standard fossil record is an excellent represetation of reality we do not believe it is quite as solid as mainstream paleontologists would have us think. There are many fossils found out of sequence and the explanation of 'washed in' or 'folded in' is used without proof necessarily. Have a good break.

Wehappy I am convinced the Cretaceous is flood. I leave open the extent to which the Cenozoic is flood. I wonder to what extent the Cenozoic is post-flood glacial melting.

quote:

---

I never said the evidence fro a higher intelligence was concusive, just that it is a possibility and is evident to many.

---

I don't ask for conclusive, just good and can't find even that.That it is possible doesn't mean anything unless there is evidence to back it up, and 'evident to many' means even less.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

I think the evidence is good to excellent and so does Behe ('Darwin's Black Box'), a fellow PhDed molecular biologist. So does God, another fellow molecular biologist (Rom 1:20). He's still an undergraduate last time I saw his title.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think the evidence is good to excellent and so does Behe ('Darwin's Black Box'), a fellow PhDed molecular biologist. So does God, another fellow molecular biologist (Rom 1:20). He's still an undergraduate last time I saw his title.

---

Since Behe is brought up again, I thought I'd point this out again. It's Kenneth Miller's review of Darwin's Black Box:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.htmlQuoting the opening paragraph of that page:

quote:

---

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1)," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

---

Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think the evidence is good to excellent

---

I realize that you do, but you aren't sharing any of that good evidence with us.Are you founding some sort of Mystery Cult? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Moose I'm aware that Behe is not a YEC and that he believes in common descent to some extent.Regardless I can agree with Behe that the cell is strong evidence of design.

JohnWhen I've got time I'll outline some of Behe's arguements. He analyses cellular systems and notes that one can't even conceive how they could work without a minmal subset of elements.It's not proof but if evolution had occured the tell tale signs would be evident. As it stands there are very few evoltuionary explanations of anything like the immune system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
When I've got time I'll outline some of Behe's arguements. He analyses cellular systems and notes that one can't even conceive how they could work without a minmal subset of elements.

---

I am familiar with some of Behe's work, but please post an example which interests you.My impression of Behe? He is very good at killing straw men.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]EdgeYou simply can't image a catastrophic flood. The global flood occurred in stages. It was global by the end of it. We use the same data you use to show that there were surges! [/QUOTE]JM: Ok, when was it 'global'? You won't answer because you'll have to defend non-marine strata in whatever time period you choose as 'global'.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge

​

You simply can't image a catastrophic flood. The global flood occurred in stages. It was global by the end of it. We use the same data you use to show that there were surges!

---

But TB.... you've only got a year!!!!------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
But TB.... you've only got a year!!!!

​

---

JM: Well, you know that many creationists now 'stretch' the flood to much more than a year (all extra-bilical of course!). Recall that in another thread, TB is claiming that surges (pre-global covering) occurred at least 50 times during the 'build-up' stages. Assuming that this pre-global stage lasted during the initial 40 days or so of rain etc, that's a bit more than 1 surge per day responsible for depositing a layer of coal in the cyclothems, receding to form continental deposits with paleocurrent indicators and then another surge. Interestingly, these daily surges do not alter the previous days deposits in any fashion. The layering stays 'razor-sharp' and the paleocurrent indicators maintain their integrity. What's even more amazing is that all this happens during the 'surge' phase. The recession phase leaves NO evidence. No wonder they call the flood miraculous.CheersJoe Meert