Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

Exactly what it says. The idea that some diseases are caused by germs, invisible factors that inhabit our air, water, and sometimes food.It's just a theory, you know.

Not exactly.Creationist "theory" predicts sudden appearance and then stasis; in other words, all organisms should exhibit sudden appearance simultaneously and then simultaneously enter a period of universal, unending stasis.Prediction not fulfilled. What we do observe is the sudden appearance of some species and the gradual appearance of others, all scattered throughout the relative timeframe; and periods of stasis for some organisms, each period of stasis being different for each organism.Consistent with evolution; inconsistent with creationism. This is also not a prediction from creationism. Creationism predicts that fossilized species should be found, equally dispersed, across a geographic area that decreases in size the farther back in relative age you go, the center of this area of decreasing size ultimately being found in the Middle East somewhere.Again, prediction not fulfilled. The geographic distribution of organisms is wide, varied, and does not appear to represent the radiation of populations from one single site of spontaneous sudden creation.

What amazes me is that, despite being reminded time after time, my opponents always seem to forget that I used to be a creationist.I know what creationists argue, Randman, because I used to argue on their side. I assure you I'm quite familiar with the arguments. Even if I wasn't it's sufficient for me to open a Bible and read for myself the creationist account of the origin of species - one nearly simultaneous creation event followed by the species stasis that creationists assert must be the case. That is not what we see. We do not see "general stasis within a range." We see some species in stasis and some in not, with no relationship to the period of stasis and their "kind", however we would know what that is.

I'm sorry? "Think i used to be a creationist?" I used to advance the idea that Genesis was a literal history, and that God had created all the living things on the Earth as a limited set of original "kinds", which then experienced various forms of adaptation within those kinds to form the diversity of life we experience today.Does that sound like I was a creationist to you? I'll thank you to leave the arrogant presumption that you're the authority on whether or not I was a creationist out of your posts to me in the future. Right. Stasis. That's what we're talking about; species remaining mostly the same throughout time. Varying only within a limited range. Stasis.If you didn't know what "stasis" meant, and it doesn't refer to organisms being exact clones of each other for all time, it would have been better for you to ask then to try to continue the debate from a basis of ignorance. Oh, I've heard much about this vaunted science of "baraminism." Can you name a single laboratory involved in baraminism? Can you name a single research finding of baraminism?Baraminism doesn't exist. It's a dodge for creationists, so that when they're put on the spot about nobody knowing what a "kind" is, they can pass the buck and assert that these nonexistent "baraminologists" are "working on it." When actually no such work is occuring.

If God created the species, as it says in the Bible; and if the works of a perfect God must themselves be perfect, why would species need to change? Even on this very site you can see creationists who show up and deny the idea that mutations can cause adaptation, so you're clearly wrong.

..and, we see that any time that Randman is confronted by an argument he can't address, it's right back to the Haekel's drawings nonsense.