"Best" evidence for evolution.

I'm talking about real evidence that I have described many times, and I think you know that, it's you who play games, twist things, try to trip me up and so on. No, it's real evidence.

The continenents hadn't split yet. One single continent is all there was.

There's probably no point in trying to be serious on this thread but oh well. I doubt Pangaea took more than a few days to split up. It's also possible that the koalas weren't yet koalas, descending from whatever ancestor was on the ark some time after the landing, possibly but not probably a teddy bear.There was plenty of time for animals to reach the ark, it took a hundred years to build it after all. And there's no reason to think the trek to the part of Pangaea that became Australia took a particularly long time. Both animals and plants would have had extra vigor which they carried over from the superhealthy Creation period, evidenced by the long lives reported for human beings. So plants should have reestablished rapidly and animals should have been able to endure long treks. It took a while for all that original vigor to fade away to our present pathetic condition.And Hawaii wouldn't yet have existed since volcanism began as a result of the Flood.CheersEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And most of those other animals probably also evolved -- meaning MICROevolved -- after the ark landing too. And I have no idea how long it was before conditions were congenial enough for the animals to spread out. If Noah had laid in enough supplies they could have hung out around the ark for some period while the land dried out and plants got established.You have to make an effort not to just shoot off the first debunking thought that comes into your little head.

Pot goes bananas.I think polar bears probably descended from an ancestor on the ark too. And I have no idea how long it would take for the land to dry out. And the ice age would have been starting as a result of the Flood so the Middle East would have been cooling off. No idea about the fish. Eucalyptus trees grow very fast even without pre-Flood vigor. A few months of supplies should do it IMHO.Cheers,
KettleEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I'm sure there was only one ice age so only one period of glaciation and retreat. I think it is still in retreat as a matter of fact, and this could be the main cause of "global warming." But warming may bring on cooling so who knows where it's all going.Yeah and the timing of the Egyptian dynasties is wrong. You are trusting very fallible timing methods for which there can't be any separate evidence. Unless you'd like to use the Bible, but nobody wants to do THAT, right? So this lack of corroborating evidence is also the problem with most of the conjurings in the service of the ToE. Very few of them are anything more than somebody peering into the past and making a flat assertion without any way to corroborate it. (oh and radiometric dating, uh huh. Oh well.)At least creationists have the historical sequences of the lives of the pre-Flood patriarchs which give a good guess at the timing of the Flood. The ToE really has NO such evidence, it's all guesswork.All you've really got is guesses and assertions you see, though you treat them as established facts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Weird to see how my ideas get chewed up upon traveling through another person's mind. THAT "f a n t a s y" is yours, not mine.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes the timing of all those things is all wrong. It's all about the timing. Except for the astronomical facts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Neither is yours, and that's the biggest problem with the historical sciences, those that purport to interpret the distant past.

I'm very aware of the principle of falsifiability, and very aware that you are wrong about the falsifiability of dinosaurs to birds etc. Although it's probably not completely impossible, science about the distant past is just not falsifiable.

Yes that's right but overall it's too easy to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit when it's in the past where it can be reinterpreted instead of definitively identified as false.

Yes. and if you wonder how that could be, it's that they had a lot more heterozygosity then than after much evolution. That's the conclusion I came to, anyway, after wondering about it a long time.The Mendel square for skin color considered possible for Adam and Eve is an expression of how all that variety could exist in one genome, and i'm sure that's greatly simplified.See Message 463Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think you were right in that earlier post, it didn't make any sense to me at all and still doesn't. But the post I answered seemed to be clear enough.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This should be an answer to Message 107 rather than 108. This is an old thread so I've lost track of the sequence of the discussion but since we are again talking about evolution I'm bringing over the evolution-related posts from the thread about the Flood where I responded to your reference to this post above with this, Message 1511: To which you responded in Message 1517: We can continue this here since the other thread focuses on the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.