Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bacteria a powerful evidence of creation
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 8 of 12 (514475)
07-07-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-07-2009 6:29 AM


mike the wiz writes:
If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable.
Why? What particular doctrine or tenet of creationism makes this "prediction"? Bear in mind that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that is disproved by this evidence (such as it is, lacking a lot of essential detail about how much difference there may actually be between bacteria that fossilized over a billion years ago and bacteria alive today).
This is evidence therefore, as defined in a mdus ponen, evidence being classed as a "viable" component.
I'm sorry... could you rephrase that (or fix the typos)? I really don't have a clue what you are trying to say in that sentence.
The article you cited had this additional remark about the bacterial fossil findings:
quote:
The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms.
Note the reference to morphology (i.e. shape). That's about all there is that can be compared. Note also the sense of uniqueness attributed to this particular finding. You wouldn't be trying to "cherry pick", would you?
In any case, now that you have locked onto this "POWERFUL" evidence for creationism, I have to ask: what particular sect or denomination of creationism are you referring to as being supported? You are accepting as evidence fossilized bacteria that have been dated to over 1 billion years ago, so you are obviously not using this in support of the various flavors of YEC.
And in what way is your "supported" form of creationism incompatible with the theory of evolution? Can you come up with some other "prediction" from this form of creationism, such that it concurs with observation, whereas ToE does not? (Extra points for being able to motivate the prediction based on specific statements from any chosen creationist literature -- not because this necessarily makes you "right", but simply because you are showing a "good faith" effort, as opposed to equivocating, prevaricating or just making stuff up.)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2009 6:29 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024