Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

Could you give your proposal a proof-read and fix the places where the grammar or formatting is a little rough? Also, to turn a URL into a real link, just put "http://" in front of it. Click the edit button at the bottom of your message. Post a short note to this thread when the edit is complete and I'll take another look.

Well, if the Flood did happen, and it happened by the hydro plate theory (my personal favorite), then there would be quite a bit of evidence for it. The Mid-Oceanic Ridge, the Grand Canyon, the Ice Age (and frozen mammoths in Siberia), the most recent mass extinction of animals, the sedimentary layers, etc.So no, there isn't no evidence for a flood. There are a few theories on the flood, and there are evidence for all (or at least most) of them.

first point: evolution is a true and ongoing observation, and a universe created works as designed by the designer.

second point: evolution does not prove the universe wasn't designed to operate that way by God.

last point:the dog and man evolutionary timetables are probably wrong.proof: a study of foxes discovered that selecting and breeding by flight distance caused changes in color and attitude in a much much shorter time than originally thought. (wish i had a link to the study)a scientist had observed dogs at a garbage dump, and noticed some had greater flight distances than others. the initial start of the dog is believed to be the wolf. which is smarter and stronger than a dog. the fox study shows that apparently, if wolves had discovered human leftovers ina consistent place (such as a dump) that the wolves of greater flight distance would leave and not return, but the wolves of lesser flight distance would return. and that if the wolves with a lesser flight distance were to constantly breed could change quite drastically, quite quickly, to dog.by this observation it is apparent that dog is a lesser form of the wolf, because it chose to scavenge instead of hunt. wolves in the natural environment are smarter and stronger because they choose to hunt.

its relevant by the topic initially posted, which "seemed" to point absolutely the timetables of dog or man evolution, which by the fox study show that the power of choice can either slow down or speed up evolutions of living things.it also explains my belief on the relevance of that choice as stated by those who believe in creation as opposed to "chance" existence.

ok, here is what im saying:
if dogs are a lesser form of wolf by way of evolution,why isn't it possible then, for apes to be a devolution in the "man" family tree?

here is the argument: from studying even recent evolution of modern man, man has apparently been getting taller in its evolution, so the earlier man could quite logically be much smaller. or the traits between the male and female of the genus be more diverse. biblical account of woman coming from the rib of man suggests that woman would be much smaller , if you look at it scientifically , a statement from the bible of course.

Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult.and:
In short, there is a wide range of opinions about the nature of the footprints and whether A. afarensis could have made them. Most creationists usually cite only Tuttle, whose conclusions they find most convenient. The most honest conclusion, for now, is to admit that although no-one can be entirely sure what made the Laetoli footprints, it seems quite likely that they belonged to australopithecines.and:
Australopithecines stood about 1-1.5 m in height and had relatively small brains typically measuring between 370 and 515 cm3 (cc)--only slightly larger than the brain of a chimpanzee. The australopithecine mode of locomotion has been a point of controversy, usually centered around the shape of australopithecine pelvis and knee bones. Early studies believed the australopithecine pelvis was a clear-cut precursor to Homo with human-like bipedality, while later studies of australopithecine locomotion found it to be different from modern apes, but also very different from humans--a distinct mode of locomotion. The most common consensus is that forms of australopithecines were adapted for both tree-climbing and at least semi-upright, if not fully upright walking, having a mode of locomotion different from all extant primates, including humans and modern apes.there are tons of different ideas, and huge arguments from creationists and evolutionists, and disagreement within both parties within themselves since no conclusion is yet available.it would appear to me, that apes are more likely a devolution of man from this data.earlier skulls of earlier genus that were found are not complete enough for me to draw a conclusion, and i cant relate the fragments as a part of the "man" tree.

but as you point out, over time, the variation would be enough that the slowly cancelled effects wouldn't be near as important in latter times as it is in the earlier, but that in the earlier a species could still survive and eventually be quite diverse.cool thats just cooli did interpret that right? right?

if yes, then in effect, one man, and one woman, could become nations of men and wemon.

why not? i mean, if a Chinese man has a child with a Irish woman, the child is quite diverse isn't it?and a black man and white woman, isn't the child more diverse?and over time, wouldn't the diversity expand?

isn't that the whole thesis of evolution, the changes and diversity over time?

well right about the according to Genesis.but in theory, if a man and woman had 6 children, and the children and mother and father all had more children, some would be defective, some would be "about" normal. then the cousins mate, and the diversity grows, until the tree is far enough down the genetics work.like, if i trace my family tree father side..i can find a common ancestor on my mothers side, but there so many generations removed, its irrelevant.whats your thoughts on this theory?

by the data I've viewed in the world as a whole, it would appear to me your conclusions are missing a variable in the original thesis of the balance.
perhaps the mutations can work for or against the other variables.for me, your conclusions i cannot accept at heart, something is missing.ill have to conclude no conclusion.

One: The traits that are emerging WERE in the original population. The animals were bred specifically for their lack of agression and what came from that was a less agressive fox.