Even Younger Earth Creationism

So is de Grasse just a misguided creationists?LOL

That is the definition, randman.It always has been.Look it up sometime.

quote:

---

ev·o·lu·tion /‘vlu‘n or, especially Brit., ‘iv-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

---

Relevant portion in bold.Please don't try to pretend you've never been told this, randman.

One more comment: you don't seem to be aware that posting the definition is not a legitimate response. As I stated before, creationists are evolutionists under that definition.Perhaps expressing things a different way can help you get your mind around the issue.The existence of evolution (under this definition) does not make the Theory of Evolution true. They are 2 different things. Merely calling the The Theory of Evolution "evolution" does not make it so.

Huh?How does the existence of evolution as described by the theory of evolution not make the TOE true?Macro evolution is merely the aggregate of micro evolution's small steps.

The introductory post of this thread attempts to raise questions about the nature of scientific inquiry as practiced by creationists. Those who want to discuss the nature of scientific inquiry as practiced by scientists, or the evolution of bacteria, or the definition of evolution, should propose new threads.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you don't understand something this simple, ......First off, it's not something solely described by the theory of evolution. It's just a normal fact described by creationists, IDers, evos and whoever else has any ideas out there. Things reproduce after their own kind but not exact duplicates. I doubt anyone has not known this since the beginning of recorded history. It's certainly not novel to Darwinists.Secondly, just because you use the same word "evolution" to describe heritable change and the theory of evolution does not make them the same thing.Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason to assume microevolution which we know decreases genetic diversity is macroevolution which requires an increase in genetic diversity and massive one at that is microevolution writ large.In other words, despite evos like you insisting otherwise, merely saying something doesn't make it so.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

randman writes

quote:

---

Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason to assume microevolution which we know decreases genetic diversity is macroevolution which requires an increase in genetic diversity and massive one at that is microevolution writ large.

---

But evolution doesn't necessarily involve the increase in genetic variation within a population, though. I don't think you understand the theory of evolution that well.

teen, I understand it fully, but this is a direction admin has stated we cannot debate here. Just keep in mind when you say "evolution", don't equate several different meanings into one.

If you wish to have this aspect of the bleedin' obvious explained to you, feel free to start a thread asking for my help, and I'll talk you through it. But please don't mess up my thread with your off-topic piffle.

What do you mean stable?I would beg to differ. There's a huge variety of bacteria, some work in ways that do not in anyway resemble the others.

True, but no-one can convince him of this fact. This is what makes him such a complete dead loss even as a creationist.

This is not "Take a shot at Randman" day.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

* Population Growth

​

Evolutionists and Creationists alike have a problem with population growth. As Darwin himself admitted:

​

The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase; it will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth six young in the interval, and surviving till one hundred years old; if this be so, after a period of from 740 to 750 years there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive descended from the first pair. (Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species

​

At that rate, if the Creationists figure of 4000 years after the Flood was correct, we can calculate that there would be about 2 x 1051 elephants now living. That's two thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion elephants.

---

Lynn Margulis, no fan nor supporter of creationism at all, used this particular quote from Darwin to name the phenomenon of "biotic potential" in a lecture I heard this year.She then showed a video of bacteria reproducing and filling up the presentation surface in short order. Bacterial potential is much larger than the elephants'.I would have thought that her discussion and implementation of the process could in no way be used to inform a creationist thought process, especially as I found myself (in the audience) being a "neo-darwinist" 'against' her position but she went on to say...this-that, during one reproduction the potential goes from 0 to infinity.The issue is, is how the population is to be plyed in space and time. Her notion of it fit in with Darwin’s use of the word “check”, so it really does seem that the evolutionist’s idea and use of biotic potential could actually be used by a creationist if the infinity were made into a continuous motion on the discrete (finite) changing Earth.No creationist has spelled this out, to my knowledge and thus the use of this quote in the series in the OP is more of stop gap rather than a fully functioning finis.

I'm wondering if you even understand evolution after that post.

quote:

---

Secondly, just because you use the same word "evolution" to describe heritable change and the theory of evolution does not make them the same thing.

---

See my line above.

quote:

---

Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason to assume microevolution which we know decreases genetic diversity is macroevolution which requires an increase in genetic diversity and massive one at that is microevolution writ large.

---

We 'know' microevolution decreases diversity? Since when? Are you making that up? Answers in Genesis perhaps? Since when did Microevolution decrease diversity?Until you prove that micro decreases, you have no case.

* Omphalos Confirmed By ScienceI eat at least 2lb of food per day. I weight ~ 150lb. Hence I can't be more than 75 days old. The whole amonsterist myth of people "being born" and "growing up" is exploded by this obvious SCIENTIFIC FACT, which clearly supports the Omphalos theory described in the OP.