thousands_not_billions:
Funny that evolutionists close their eyes to the evidence for the Flood.
AiG on Noah's Flood.
To which I respond:
this excellent page on Noah's Flood.
Oh come on! Peter, Luke, and Matthew knew Christ really well. They were three of his disciples. Paul and Mark were well acquainted with Christ, and Paul saw Him in vision.
That must be a strange kind of acquaintance, since the historical Jesus Christ, if there ever was one, had died in the early 30's, while the Gospels are dated at 66 at the earliest, and probably 70's or later.
I invite everybody interested in the Jesus-Christ-historicity question to consult
The Jesus Puzzle -- it seriously advocates the hypothesis that JC had been a myth.
I am. But the foundations of Christianity were laid down before Buddism, with the 10 Commandments and Genesis.
Jews would disagree; they consider Jesus Christ nobody special.
Actually, I didn't get my facts wrong again. Moses wrote the books of Job, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and half of Deuteronomy. That's quite a few.
Except that he didn't -- these books present him in the third person, and they look like they were written by several authors (JEDP, etc.)
And the Bible is not borrowed from the Hindu religion. In fact, overwelming evidence that Buddism and Hinduism borrowed from the Bible has been found. (Truth Triumphant) B.G. Wilkinson.
One would have to have a very overheated imagination to conclude that.
America's greatness came from it's Biblical ethics and Bible believing people.
Like how we all believe that the Earth is flat because the Bible clearly indicates that? And how we all sell everything we have and give the money to the poor? And seriously consider making ourselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven?
Also, the Bible provided a basis for the wonderful advances in technology, and science that have come about. Many early scientists were Christians, and believed in the Bible fully. God's blessing attended them, and He allowed them to unlock the mysteries of His creation.
Male-bovine excrement, pure and simple. Early-modern scientists could not have gotten very far in their societies without professing belief in Jesus Christ, and ancient Greek ones -- most of them worked before Jesus Christ was born!
Furthemore, the Bible is not very helpful in science and technology. If one is sick, does one go to one's friendly neighborhood exorcist?
What caused the economy of these countries like Australia to boom? God's blessing on the country for one.
And how does one figure that out? Did someone see some superpowerful old man with a big white beard in action, planting natural resources in the ground?
And let us not forget about the success of non-Christian countries like Japan and Taiwan.
Just look at Nebraska Man. Evolutionists guessed that he was an ancestor of homo sapians, but he turned out to be an extinct pig.
It was recognized to be an overenthusiastic false alarm very quickly.
What evolution predicts is millions of transitional fossils, but only a handful of specimans, which are extremely debatable, have been found. The handful of specimans however, are most certainly not true transitional fossils.
Except that evolution can occur in bursts.
(someone else)
Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.
Really? Why don't you tell this to someone suffering from Cystic Fibrosis. They might appreciate this. Actually, mutations almost always have a harmful affect on a species, and they always scramble information.
Non sequitur. Bad mutations do not have to be common to be real. Furthermore, the Cystic Fibrosis mutation may protect against tuberculosis the way that the Sickle-Cell Anemia mutation protects against malaria.
(quote-mining snipped)
Many mutations are "synonymous" -- they don't change the amino-acid composition of the protein they code for, something which makes them harmless.
If I have a printing press that deletes each tenth letter in a book, is new information being produced? The book is different from the origional, but no new information is formed. In fact, information is lost.
However, if I had a printing press that makes extra copies, I can create information.
And there is an abundance of evidence of gene duplication in the histories of various genes. Sometimes whole genomes get duplicated -- polyploidy.
Also, I can have a miscopying printing press create meaningful books -- by selecting every meaningful-looking miscopy and using it as an original for several more copies. I then repeat the process until I get a very meaningful book.
ho hum. Not the hox genes again. The hox genes control where body segments are grown. Mutations can shift them around. But this adds no new information to the organism, it only forms the ordinary structures in a different area of the body.
Actually, Hox genes control what each body region is supposed to be like -- whether an arthropod's limbs become antennae, mouthparts, walking legs, or are absent. Gaining sensitivity to one Hox protein but not to another adds information.
And Hox genes themselves had originated by gene duplication.
Do we really have to go through this again mate? Rarely, mutations can create seeming advantages for an organism, like bacteria that are unaffected by drugs, and beetles that cannot be blown into the sea, as they do not have wings. This is not evolution, as no new information is added, but is rather deleted.
Calling this information loss is male-bovine excrement that would make a lawyer proud.
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool
No evidence against it either.
The way that there is no evidence against the proposition that Jesus Christ had been homosexual?
Evolve is not the correct wording. New characteristics can rise quickly. If a species is isolated from the parent stock, then changes can occur more quickly. This is not evolution. This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used.
Evolution, by any other name, is still evolution.
(stuff about polystrate trees)
One problem: some lake bottoms are stagnant. This allows decay microbes to consume all the water's oxygen, meaning that they cannot continue to cause much more decay unless more oxygen (slowly) diffuses in. And (diffusion time) ~ (diffusion distance)^2.
I remember from my childhood lots of dead leaves on the bottom of a lake that I was swimming in; I dredged them up with my feet.
So a submerged tree stump can stay intact long enough to be buried by several layers of sediment.
And why not AiG? Truth is truth no matter who says it.
Except that AiG is much less true than
No Answers in Genesis.
It just shows that you don't have to have millions of years to form coal.
IRRELEVANT.
Dead serious. And what's wrong with Creation magazine? All articles are reviewed by professional scientists for ages before they are published. It's a scientific magazine.
As opposed with the professional journals that publish oodles of articles on research into evolution?
Journals which don't have some oath that says that one has to believe in the absolute truth of Darwin's
Origin of Species before one can publish in them -- unlike the sort of thing that many creationist societies have.
I might not know everything, but the science I have looked at all supports Creation.
In what way? Did they go back in a time machine and watch some superbeing say "let this exist", "let that exist", "let the other thing exist", with all this stuff coming into existence?
Evolutionists cannot explain the Cambian explosion. They have several theorys but none explains the mysterious absence of transitional forms leading up to the explosion of life.
Except that the "Cambrian explosion" is not quite as sudden as some people seem to think. And there was plenty of Precambrian life, though it is usually very primitive.
Look at some of the quotes by evolutionists themselves. Many are doubting evolution. ...
Except that many of these quotes are either bogus "quotes", misquotes, or out-of-context quotes.
No one will tell you that there are not canyons in the MSH ash, but pyroclastic mudflows do not look like sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock. The MSH analogy is moronic.
Have you been there? Have you seen the area? Where's the evidence for that statement?
Have you? Soft, unconsolidated mud is very unlike hard, consolidated rock.
a. C-14 is present in every sample of coal that has ever been checked. ...
Some samples, yes, but ALL? Where are all the original lab reports?
Tiny amounts of C-14 in coal are known to happen, but is produced as a side effect of the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and their daughter elements.
b. Wood from the Tertiary basalt was buried in a lava flow that clearly covered it, as the wood was charred. The wood was dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old and the basalt was, well, 45,000,000 years old. Um, something's wrong here.
Seems like one's reaching the noise limit of C-14 detection in that wood -- if that measurement was ever made. Where is the original lab report?
c. Lava flows at the top of the Grand Canyon are dated to be older then lava flows imbedded in the bottom layers. What? Did the canyon form upside down?
Where did you find this out? Where are the original lab reports? Dating of igneous rocks has confirmed the chronology that was worked out from applying principles like the Law of Superposition over previous decades.
Why? The emergence of a new species does not mean the parent species dies out. You can have branching.
What determines which stay as a simplier species and which evolve? ...
They can have different preferred geographical ranges or ecological zones. Thus, a land-adapted fish may prefer to walk around on land, while a non-land-adapted one may prefer to continue swimming in the water. Check on "allopatric speciation" some time.
Mash. The guy who "constructed" the horse series. He recognized wild mustangs in the southwest with three toes living then.
Where are his original reports? And some present-day horses do have side digits -- it's a leftover from their three-toed ancestors.
SIV might have mutated to form HIV. No new information was added and no evolution is proved.
I marvel at how much evolution a creationist is willing to concede had happened.
™ Version 4.2