Science Disproves Evolution

quote:

---

I mentioned fulfiled prophecy relative to history

---

Got it. Interpreting vague prophecies to fit one of the many events in history. Too bad that another interpretation would disqualify many of those prophecies as being fulfilled. Try again Nostradamus.

quote:

---

I agree but our model includes such physical phenomena as I have cited above.

---

So you're saying your model includes factors that cannot be tested for in any way, left no evidence and run contradictory to modern applied sciences?I'm waiting for a Goddidit.

quote:

---

As I've argued time and again, the Biblical model implies pre-flood conditions which should render modern dating methodology inaccurate. Thus if we don't know what the properties of the atmosphere were before the flood, how can we test for acurate dating? We can't so we come up with varied date hypotheses. We use what corroborating evidence we can assemble and build our hypothesis on those.

---

How convenient. Your model rejects applied modern sciences and instead argues that conditions that cannot be tested for and left no evidence were in fact existing over conditions that we can test for and we know to occur at known rates. That the entire system of physical laws were in fact not operation prior to the flood and that during the flood somehow without leaving any trace whatsoever these laws of physics magically changed? Also that life as a whole which operated under the different set of physical laws was able to thrive and expand in a world governed by a new set of physical laws with no adverse or noticeable effects? Goddidit? Magic?I'm calling your argument complete and absolute bull****.

quote:

---

We believe we do have something to offer but the majority has the bully pulpit in education, the media and the mainstream science arena.

---

For a reason. Mainstream science works on the principles that assertions have to be tested. Your model relies upon a assumption that cannot be tested period and requires magic to work.The laws of physics changed radically but left no evidence of their change or previous state!Right.....

quote:

---

Ah, but there is a third alternative: ignore and run away. Surely, a tried and true YEC technique.

---

We have a winner!The sad thing is that buzz will reuse that same argument in a month.

Heck the Cambrian was 50 million years no? That's pretty quick to produce a relatively large number of species from a initially low ancestor base.And we can't forget that the rise of super pests and bacteria all have happened in less then 50 years.

quote:

---

The age of the earth is an observational fact, not a requirement in which to fit the evolution of the species.

---

Something creationist won't understand as they assume a conclusion and look for evidence rather then start with evidence and then conclude based on such evidence.What do you think creationists would do if in the future we observe a planet where evolution occurs in a few thousand years? Crap in their pants and say Goddidit?

{Trash posting "hidden". People, you're starting to piss me off. And don't reply to this comment in this message. If you must reply, go to General discussion of moderation procedures. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

Jason, has it occurred to you that evolution does not state that all members of a species evolve at the same time? That one group may evolve into something new, but a isolated group not facing differing pressures would not significantly evolve? That it is possible that the new species could enter an area with their ancestors and leave remains?