Problems with Genesis Creation

But they are. That's the problem for you. They are older than the 6000 year creation date.You can say "well, they can't be", but that's just sticking your head in the sand, because we know they're older than that.

If you know what you're looking for, yeah they do, actually. These dates aren't based on their consistency with evolution; they're based on consistency with the laws of physics.

Wrong again. Observed Instances of SpeciationA specific example:

quote:

---

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

---

A whole new family! Why on Earth would you think any of those things would be expected to happen under evolution? In the evolutionary model, elephants didn't evolve from dogs, nor fish from giraffes, nor birds from lizards. Organisms evolve from organisms that are similar, not from ones that are radically different. And the proof of this is that, as you go back in time through the fossil record, all the organisms get more similar to each other. Ultimately you'd reach a point where all organisms were the same; the same as the original common ancestor.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Actually God is the ultimate unnecessary entity.

I really don't, since it's both based on false premises and represents a false dilemma.But the thing is - even taking the "trilemma" on its face, it doesn't hold up. Lewis doesn't give any reason why its wrong to think Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. It's just implicit in the trilemma that if you make either of those two claims, Western society in the time of Lewis would have ostracised you.It's little more than a threat. The trilemma is basically "Ok, so Jesus has to be liar, lunatic, or Lord; plus, if you answer either of the first two, I'll fucking kill you. So which is it? Lord? Yeah, I thought you might say that."That's not the only place that it falls flat, but if it came to it, I'd have no problem saying that Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic, or both. Why would I?By the way - is there some reason you're not responding to rebuttals?