Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

Well, of course, human originated science is naturally flawed, naturally likely to be at odds with the truth in some places, but most of it is not as fantastic as the ToE. The ToE does contradict the written word of God and so do the time factors in the rest of what you list, but the practical sciences in general do not contradict it. A Bible believing Christian has no problem with most of it. Astronomy is a problem, great ages are a problem, but all the practical sciences are not. Archaeology is not a problem though we may dispute some of its dates. Neurology is no problem, germ theory is no problem, genetics is no problem, and 99% of geology is not a problem, and most of astronomy too. Only the time factor. Some day we'll understand how to put it all together, but we don't yet.

I was clear on that thread that specific assertions and theories within the various sciences are incompatible with YEC. But that the daily work of science itself is not in question.

YECs don't deny "real geology" just certain theories. No YECs deny thermodynamics that I know of. Well, it would be a very different science certainly, but whatever is an actual fact is not questioned. Fossils can certainly be dug up and compared. All interesting creatures from before the Flood, quite a wealth of life to bring their Creator to mind.If what you mean by doing palaeontology is theorizing about what descended from what, that's just making castles in the air, which is what most of the ToE does. Easily. One of the amazing creatures God made that demonstrates the amazing fecundity and variability of the original life forms. No denying the Stone Age, just its dates. They'd have to theorize about how some branches of humanity got into that primitive situation after the Flood when before they were capable of building a huge ship like the ark. There are other ways archaeologists date things than radio-carbon dating and dendrochronology. Astronomy is indeed a problem for YECs. Perhaps some understand how to resolve the problem. I don't. In which case, even under YEC assumptions they could only proceed as usual until further notice. No idea what you are talking about. Why would information theory change and who is Werner Gitt? A LOT better. It's laboring now under false ideas about how it works, about mutation for one thing. The study of the genome would proceed as usual. Perhaps it can't be done. Some things are dispensable after all if they are working under a delusional theory. But I don't know what an ESS is or behavioral ecology so I can't say. The way Linnaeus did I would assume. Yes, this one has been run by us here. The actual role played by dating appears to be minuscule, and the relevant factors involved in finding oil have to do with physical configurations of the land which are only incidentally and irrelevantly tied to dates.

Glenn Morton has been answered by creationists, as you must know. In any case, one man's opinion does not a rebuttal make.

I believe we're off topic here Dr. A. No place here for revisiting the entire Evo-Creo debate.

I just want to explain this one thing. They had to have started with a LOT more genetic potential than we see in anything living today, whatever form that might have taken. Enough to produce all the amazing varieties in the fossil record before the Flood wiped them out.It doesn't take much time to get dramatically new breeds of dogs and cats, very little, so evolutionists are just wrong that it takes a lot of time to evolve new variations. All it takes is isolation of portions of any population, geographic isolation through migration, selection-caused isolation, gene drift being one way that happens and so on. Isolation alone will bring about new phenotypes. Isolation causes a change in allele frequencies, and a change in allele frequencies brings about new phenotypes.Diversity is built into the original genome, and gets played out when selecting processes divide the population, sometimes leaving alleles behind as others combine to bring about new traits.I have yet to see any need for mutation in this entire process, let alone evidence that it in fact makes any contribution to it.Yes, when these processes continue to act, dividing, selecting, isolating for many many generations, a particular breed may get to the point that it has so little diversity it cannot change any further and in fact is on the verge of distinction, but that takes a LOT of reduction in the service of producing a new breed or "species." What evos call speciation is simply this process taken to the point of inability to interbreed into the original population. To a creationist this is simply how a variety is made distinctive, unique. It is only threatened with extinction only because of the Fall, which brings in disease, genetic diseases, and death. Otherwise it is merely an expression of the great creative possibilities of the genetic system God designed into all creatures.All that has happened with my use of a term like speciation is that it makes communication easier. It's been a terminological problem because of the way it is used by evolutionists, which creationists naturally try to avoid. But when it's understood that it's only describing what creationists observe happening all the time then it helps to use it for the sake of better communication. Nothing has changed in creationist thinking in reality. OK, I JUST REALIZED THIS IS OFF TOPIC TOO. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE OP WAS LOOKING FOR. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

You could have heard it for years at EvC. Creationists use it all the time.