Problems with Genesis Creation

Just want to clarify something.you mention T-rex and all those other massive dinosaur carnivores. Just how positive are we that they are warm-blooded? The last thing I've read about this was from a book by Bakker (i think he's the author--massive book too) and that was when I was a 5th grader (so . . .8 years ago?). A good case then, just want to check. I just know someone's going to argue "uh uh, them dino's was cold-blooded lizards".

as you may have been told before, radio-carbon dating is used on non-fossilized, organic materials. a fossilized tree does not count. why? fossilization replaces the original materials with minerals.that's why no one would date that fossilized wood--there would be little to no carbon left to date, because it was replaced by minerals.

too funny man, too funny. since when did "springs" mean "volcanoes"? furthermore, volcanoes don't exactly erupt water. my own personal wager--if every volcano on earth erupted for 40 days, there would be so much poisonous gas in the air that we could not and would not survive. never mind the flood.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

not halfway through. i did :laughing: instead of . hence the edit.

did not notice the title. hardly pay attention to those things, i do.

you know, something tells me this is false. I definitely don't remember seeing anything drawn by Haekel in my bio textbook (Campbell, standard issue apparently, in colleges).I also don't remember a single picture of those moths. Were both talked about? Sure--only to say that Haekel was wrong and that the moths provide a good example of natural selection working on traits.If you have any issues with these two, we have whole threads devoted to them. try looking them up with the search function.And yes, they would be updated. Why? Even my history book gets updated--I've got the '06 version, but they already have an '07. And nothing happened that would significantly alter an introduction to western civ. in the last year. If something did happen, it would be included without a doubt. I was using an 05 (maybe an 04) Campbell's Bio book when I took my bio class. They now have an '06 or '07 edition. If something earth-shattering for evolution (or evolutionary history) happened, it would be included.

the ToE doesn't make any claims about "upward progression". In it's most simple, it is this:
[random mutation (variation) plus natural selection]/time = change in species.the one further postulate is that these species will either become better adapted to their environment or become extinct.your example of sickle-cell anemia fits the bill. Those people are better adapted to surviving in malaria-ridden areas. Plus, as you say, it was a mutation. so those who have it end up having more offspring, and more succesfull offsrping (than those who don't have the mutation). that's part of natural selection.congratulations. you just used a proof of ToE to disprove ToE.here's a hint. Learn what the ToE actually is.

of course. how could I have forgotten?*scrounges around for latest "The Good Creationist" text*hm. that explains it. The latest issue I have is from this time last year--where it clearly tells them to only avoid an education if possible.I know I've been told that the new issue forbids an education outright, but without that issue, hard to remember.

I've yet to see something that actually is irreducibly complex. How about showing us one IC thing? Make that "food web" and you'll have a better argument. There's hardly anything complex in a food chain, where energy moves in one direction--to the final consumer. Even in a food web all the energy moves in one direction--to the consumers. How is that movement of energy complex?