Since my last message and evidence link I see nothing but responses pertaining to bashing creationism/creationists and nothing directly addressing the cited evidence for creationism in the link. Admittedly I am not in the position to debate the science of the links pertaining to cells and the brain, but I figured folks here who are able might have some comments of significance to refute the claims of the statements if indeed they were able.
Anyhow with the thread winding down it's likely just as well. In summary, there have been discussed some of the evidences we creationists consider to be worthy of citing but given the unknowns like pre-flood climatology, atmospheric properties and such we creationists just have to say much is unknown. We don't claim to know nearly all evolutionists are assuming to be factual relative to tens of thousands, millions and billions of years ago.
Evolutionists in responses to me in this thread relative to the population debate are essentially saying
we don't know either as per Malthusian irregularities along the way yet they claim to be debating with ever so much authority when they make their assertions about how things allegedly were in eons past.
Much of the credibility of the Biblical model lies in corroborating data like the fulfilled prophecies, the Exodus crossing reseach, history, interpretation of the observed, but to them it's all whistling in the wind and they have no interest in any of it since much of it is not directly related to science itself. Creationists like myself see much of this as supportive to the Biblical record so we begin with that as our model and debate falsification attempts.
Imo, the greatest debate of all boils down to dating methodology. Our argument is somewhat like Malthusian except that instead of unknows about population survival capabilities etc it's about unknow conditions preflood, when the Biblical flood model is applied. Jar denies there is such a thing as flood or Biblical model, but that's as foolish as if we were to try to deny the models evolutionists use for arguing their POV. The Biblical and flood model has no resemblence whatsoever to the secularist evolutionist POV yet they insist that our evidences must be based on
their model. It just ainta gona work thataway if we are to have real fair and balanced evo-creo debate here. W can't debate the Biblical model exclusive of the book itself and the evidences observed relative to the supernatural aspects of it. That is not to say the Bible itself is evidence. No way! It's what we see as a credible model from which to base our research so as to either verify or falsify the model.
Admittedly I got careless in the earlier segment of the population arguments in that the first link was too ambiguous as to exactly how the math was done and the online calculator which I applied was too simplistic. I endeavored to rectify that in the latter messages which appeared to lend some credibility to my POV.......IMO.
Edited by Buzsaw, : clarify wording
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
™ Version 4.2