Jet writes:
quote:
TIME TO STOP PLAYING GAMES.
And yet your own post is filled with them. For example, you first say:
Animals and insects that totally defy the idea of evolution, and in fact prove to be an impossibility according to the tenets of the TOE.
And then you immediately follow it up with:
[Please don't play the ignorant card and ask me to name that with which you are already, or at least should be, familiar. That's assuming that you are one of the few honest and truly open minded evolutionists.]
This is a prime example of playing games. You make a claim, a very bold claim at that, with absolutely no justification to back it up and then immediately says that anybody who actually has the temerity to ask you for an example is somehow being dishonest.
So call me dishonest, then. I want an example.
There was a wonderful
Nature episode on PBS last night:
Obsession with Orchids. As you may be aware, orchids are one of the prime examples of evolution we have. They are so well-adapted to their specific pollinators that they just scream evolution. And if that weren't enough, you can create new species of orchid by breeding them yourself. In fact, there are now more kinds of man-made orchids than there are wild orchid.
quote:
Honest evolutionists will admit the TOE has numerous problems,
Of course. It's an active area of scientific research. However, you seem to be of the opinion that "problems" means "fundamental problems."
Instead, the problems in evolution have to do with details. That is, if you come across two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi in its decimal expansion is a 6 or a 2, they are obviously having a discussion. But notice they are not arguing over whether or not pi is an integer.
Have you ever had an argument with someone over what color something was? You'd insist it was orange and they'd be just as certain that it was red, for example. Notice that the two of you both agree that it has a color and that it is in a very specific part of the visual spectrum: Red and orange are adjacent colors and neither of you is saying that it's green. You two are clearly in disagreement, but not over a fundamental proposition...only a tiny detail.
That's the difference between a detail problem and a fundamental problem. There is no fundamental problem in evolution. Since we can observe evolution happen right in front of our eyes (go into the lab and work with bacteria, watching them mutate from lac- to lac+ or from K-type to K/4, for example), then there is no question that evolution happens, just as there is no question that gravity happens because I can see that when I take a ball in my hand and let go, it falls to the ground.
There are lots of questions still to be answered in biology in general and evolution in particular. That doesn't mean the topic is a fantasy of self-deluded individuals.
quote:
though many feel uncomfortable admitting this publicly.
Not at all. I don't know of a single person who understands evolutionary theory who is uncomfortable in saying that there is still plenty of work to be done in the field.
quote:
We all know of the evidence that favors Biblical accounts of past events over the TOE.
No, we don't. Again, call me dishonest, but could you please provide an example?
quote:
Sedimentary layers that are separated by oceans and yet match up perfectly.
That would be evidence of plate tectonics, not a global flood. You see, a flood would lay down sediment that is most like the surrounding uppermost layers. The uppermost layers of Africa are not like the uppermost layers of the Americas. Therefore, a global flood would not show identical layers across the ocean...they're too far away.
Plate tectonics, on the other hand, accounts for this: At some point in the past, Africa and the Americas were part of the same land mass. Thus, when they broke apart, they maintained their shared history as new, unrelated layers are deposited on top of them.
quote:
Animals and insects that totally defy the idea of evolution, and in fact prove to be an impossibility according to the tenets of the TOE.
Again, call me dishonest, but I'm going to need an example. So far, every species we have been able to examine has proven to be expected from evolutionary processes.
Help us out here. Give us an example and then describe what we would necessarily expect to see out of an evolutionary process and then show us why that result is not seen. And then if you're going to claim creation, you're going to have to describe what we would necessarily expect to see out of a creation event and then show us why that result is seen.
Personally, I think you're going to have a bit of a problem with that last bit since creation can happen in any way. When your "theory" is nothing more than "god did it," then it doesn't matter what things look like. Since "god did it" is consistent with every single outcome, we are left with the adage that "a theory which explains everything actually explains nothing."
quote:
Fossilized trees protruding through several sedimentary layers, indicating a global flood the laid sedimentary layers very rapidly, not over millions of years.
Ah, yes. Polystrate fossils. Please look here:
"Polystrate" Tree FossilsA Whale of a Tale
The first debunks the myth that there is a "problem" with polystrate fossils. After all, they were explained quite handily over 100 years ago.
The second debunks the myth of the baleen whale fossil supposedly found upright through "50 million years of strata." For example, the whale wasn't upright.
quote:
As I stated in previous posts, both evolutionists and creationists prefer accepting evidence that supposedly supports their views while rejecting evidence that obviously contradicts their views. This is nothing new.
But the difference is what happens when you prove those views to be wrong.
In religion, they excommunicate you and if they really don't like you, they'll put you to death. You do recall that people were burned at the stake for claiming the earth went around the sun, yes?
When was the last time you heard of the AAAS calling for the death of somebody?
In science, however, if you overturn the dominant paradigm, they give you the Nobel Prize.
quote:
In closing, let me state that many evolutionists, and to be fair, many creationists, tend to navigate towards mob mentality, accepting the majority opinion regardless of the need to investigate further. I thank God that a certain individual rejected that "mob mentality" and insisted that the world was round and not flat, (as is made obvious in the Scriptures, upon which he relied heavily).
Um, not quite. You seem to have fallen for the myth.
The world was known to be round since at least the Ancient Greeks. Eratosthenes gave a remarkably good estimate for the size of the earth from a simple triangulation.
And no, Columbus was not fighting against people who thought the earth was flat. He was fighting against people who thought the earth was big. That is, everybody knew the earth was round, but they were confident in the calculations that described a journey westward to be longer than a journey around Africa...especially since there were no known landing points to pick up supplies along the way. Columbus, using erroneous data and making a severe miscalculation, underestimated the size of the earth by a huge amount but thus convincing him that a journey westward was shorter than eastward around Africa and could be done in ships with ample supplies.
As we all know, he was wrong: The earth is big...so big that there is another continental system in the way.
I notice that you use a flat earth for your example rather than the geocentric universe. Could that be because Galileo is such a positive indicator of the resistance science meets when coming up against church dogma?
But let's not quibble over the shape or position of the earth. Let's talk about the moon. Galileo looked through his telescope and saw mountains on the moon. He even got the churchmen together who told him he was engaging in heresy for suggesting that the moon was not perfectly round and smooth and pleaded with them to simply look through the telescope and see for themselves. They refused since they already knew that the moon was perfect.
Look through the telescope, Jet.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
