Creation vs. Evolution

[TheDuke]

Perhaps quote what I really said instead of creating strawman arguments.

must be you favorite new word, eh

 

[TheDuke]

I believe that life came from non –life. I also believe my shoes will be by my bed in the morning, right where I took them off. In both cases – life from non-life, and the location of my shoes, I might be wrong. Does my belief about my shoes staying put qualify as a religious belief system?

BTW so do the theists - it's called a Golem spell

 

[TheDuke]

Science now has upgraded Neandertals to homo sapiens

And now let's see:

1) When do you think Neanderthals lived?

2) Who do you think assigns their taxonomy?

3) What do you reckon explains their anatomical difference to modern humans?


And Bonus round:
What makes you think "science" has "upgraded" them?

 

[DavisBJ]

Absolutely!!! Ha

But, if the mystery of your missing shoes starts to become a driving force in your life, then perhaps you will start 'preaching' about shoes to others... Well, maybe your missing shoes does become sort of a religious belief system.

Let’s see what you define as a driving force. Here at TOL, I haven’t made a single post in any thread but this one for well over a year, and as you can see from my stats, I post an average of 0.5 posts per day. So indeed, my devotion to where my shoes are is not much different than the time I spend responding to your inanity. If your devotion (your "driving force") to your theology is at that level, then you are a world-class wimp of a Christian.

 

[alwight]

Dawkins say that most of the genome may as well not be there for all the difference it makes). Science continues to prove those evolutionary beliefs are false.

But Dawkins is a scientist, subject to peer review, who like almost all natural scientists of whatever theistic position, have no doubts at all about common descent without having to be entitled as "evolutionists".

Well hail Dawkins and peer review....but there assumptions were proved wrong by science.*

Peer review will confirm or falsify the scientific status and Dawkins' work is no exception. You may not approve of his anti-theism but I'm not aware that peer review has ever given him a free pass for his scientific work.

Your attempts to divide off "evolutionists" as somehow misrepresenting science rather than just presenting it honestly, is just a baseless assertion. If what is said does not relate to real science then the time to point that out is at the time not now that your accusations can no longer be examined.

Hmmmmm. .... That sounds like a topic in itself...examining the many many baseless assertions of evolutionists.

Well done then on another baseless assertion here 6days.lain:

I'd be more of the opinion that non-coding "Junk" DNA represents a possible historical insight into a very long evolutionary journey. I'd also suggest that if life today has only existed for as long as YECs would have us all believe then there would be very little "Junk DNA" to speak of, if any. Its mere existence is yet more evidence that life has been around for a very long time indeed.

That is the type of thinking that has hindered science and medical progress. Scientists are just beginning the journey of discovery into our non coding DNA. Assuming it is junk because you don't understand the function, is more religion than it is science.*

This is just a red herring, I didn't bring up "junk" DNA here, you did, and I don't think I've ever presented "junk" DNA as anything other than a throwaway term for DNA where an apparent physical purpose was not known. Calling it "junk" was never a scientific conclusion just something catchy that caught on for a while.

Whatever, but in your worldview there is no reasonably adequate amount of time for any such long term adaption, for anything to become considered as probably vestigial and having had a previous established long term function.

Again you speak from your belief system and not from evidence.

How long do you think it took for blind cave fish to lose sight? *There are many known instances of rapid adaptation, fitting the Biblical creation model.

Then why do blind cave crabs still have eye stalks? Such vestigial conclusions are scientific, not something invented by "evolutionists". Pretending that you agree with science while it's "evolutionists" who are misrepresenting it is a crock and something for you to more honestly dispute at the time, not just baldly assert it now.

I rather suspect 6days that your "evolutionists" are simply something plucked from your imagination. Concluding that Darwinian evolution just is a better and more rational explanation for modern life being as it is than that offered by a literalist interpretation of Genesis doesn't make me feel that I do so as an "evolutionist". In my mind at least what I advocate is whatever I consider to be evidence based, scientifically verifiable, reasonable and rational, not because I have an overarching agenda to push evolution.

Alwight... with all respect, your beliefs in common ancestry are not evidence based...and certainly not scientifically verifiable. Instead, both of us have beliefs about the past through which we interpret the evidence.*

Going back to the appendix as an example.....evolutionists thought it was useless because of common ancestry. *Creationists said it may have function not yet known...or it may have become useless since we live in a fallen world.

I realise that your Morton's Demon perhaps will not allow you to hear the evidence 6days but it exists in spades. ERVs are certainly at least convincing evidence imo but whether you want to hear or not is another matter. So too is the common inability to produce vitamin C due to the same genetic mutation that I talked about before, which seems to have passed you by.

You may not like the scientific conclusions and try to reassign them to something you call "evolutionists" but like it or not natural science as a whole has nevertheless concluded that common descent is for all intents and purposes a real fact of life.

I think Stripe would tell you that evolutionists seem to believe that majority opinion is science. Fortunately, science doesn't work like that or we would still believe that life arose from non life.*

Surely though you do believe that life arose from non-life even if God did it? I otoh simply assume that life did emerge at least once from non-life since we are here and since I am not aware that miraculous events ever happen.
Science only confirms that complex life cannot spontaneously emerge as it was once thought it could, not that self reproducing molecules could never become life as perhaps they did.

This may come as a surprise but I don't regard Stripe as a font of all knowledge. :nono:

As one of your so called "evolutionists" 6days I personally never came to any conclusions about how clever, dim-witted or subhuman any earlier races of humans (like Neandertals) were. Evolution imo tends to produce creatures that are able to cope with their environment and being dim-witted is hardly a selectable attribute.*

Great!

However your fellow evolutionists were not so wise. *Neandertals were originally said to be stooped over, inarticulate and dimwitted. Science now has upgraded Neandertals to homo sapiens. ...wise man.*

Since I don't know who said such things nor the context nor why then I can't really comment except to say that such opinions may change with better evidence, but imo YECs and real evidence don't often mix.

 

[6days]

Let’s see what you define as a driving force. Here at TOL, I haven’t made a single post in any thread but this one for well over a year, and as you can see from my stats, I post an average of 0.5 posts per day. So indeed, my devotion to where my shoes are is not much different than the time I spend responding to your inanity. If your devotion (your "driving force") to your theology is at that level, then you are a world-class wimp of a Christian.

Haha. ..ok, well it seems my attempt to have some fun with your missing shoes has been an abysmal failure.

It seems I have offended you.... I'm sorry. I did not say you in particular are religious. I think my wording was something like 'atheism is often a religious belief system'.

And... I should tell you that I value your input here in TOL. Although we disagree, I respect that you are sincere and respectful. TOL would not exist if we all agreed about everything.

 

[6days]

Notice the dodge on 6days’ part? Alwight asked for specifics on pseudogenes and ERVs, and 6days simply says that science found it was wrong on junk DNA and useless appendix. Not one specific detail about why either the pseudogene argument or the ERV argument is wrong.

I had answered with ....
"ERV's are simply one more thing that science is proving evolutionists wrong on ( like "junk" DNA, "useless" organs like appendix, Neandertals not breeding with humans, psuedogenes etc).

For creationist and Biblical perspective there are many articles on ERV'S, such as....
"Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’"
http://creation.mobi/large-scale-fun...s-retroviruses

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)—Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools?"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetic...vs-gods-tools/

"Do Shared Endogenous Retroviral Elements Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Primates?"
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/201...viral.html?m=1"


And......"As one of the above articles concludes.....

"Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates."

I*agree with 6 days. But more importantly, I wonder why 6days is quite careful to always append the adjective “useless” in front of the word “appendix”. I am pretty sure he is trying to discredit the concept of vestigial organs, but being vestigial does not require that the organ be useless. 6 days prefers to avoid the real issue of vestigial?

The word 'vestigial' is an rubbery word that evolutionists like to use.*

The reason I say that evolutionists called the appendix "USELESS"...is because that is the term they used.

 

[6days]

3) What do you reckon explains their anatomical difference to modern humans??

Genetic drift, sexual selection, mutations.....
Same as with all distinct people groups.

 

[Jose Fly]

I had answered with ....
"ERV's are simply one more thing that science is proving evolutionists wrong on ( like "junk" DNA, "useless" organs like appendix, Neandertals not breeding with humans, psuedogenes etc).

All of which is false, and you've been corrected on multiple times. But as we've seen, you are impervious to information that contradicts your beliefs. Such is the nature of creationism.

"Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates."

Are you aware that transposable elements are used in paternity testing, and is considered "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in courts? Do you think a court would find it a reasonable objection if a lawyer argued "The shared sequences between my client and the child may have functions, which means it may be that God put them there"?

 

[DavisBJ]

The reason I say that evolutionists called the appendix "USELESS"...is because that is the term they used.

I don't question for a moment that as our understanding of anatomy progressed, it initially was thought that the human appendix did not perform a useful function. But we are years past that now, and it seems that you prefer to focus on that early mistake as though that settled the matter in favor of the creationist viewpoint. Posts in this thread (and others) have often pointed out that we now understand perfectly well that organs can perform useful functions and still be vestigial. Your posts demonstrate an unwillingness to admit that.

 

[6days]

Peer review will confirm or falsify the scientific status and Dawkins' work is no exception.

Dawkins work?

It was beliefs... not his work that caused Dawkins false conclusions about non coding DNA.*

Hmmmmm. .... That sounds like a topic in itself...examining the many many baseless assertions of evolutionists.

Well done then on another baseless assertion here 6days.

Oh dear.... surely you must realize there are hundreds of baseless conclusions that evolutionism is built upon.

Let's look at just a couple in what evolutionists think, or thought were transitional ape to human fossils.*

No... rather than list examples I will just quote Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin (book, People of the Lake)
" What fossils tell us directly, of course, is what our ancestors and their close relative look like. Or rather, to be more accurate, they give some clues about the physical appearance of early hominids, because until someone is lucky enough to come across a complete skeleton of one of our ancestors, much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork"

The guesswork (baseless assertions) *is built upon a false belief system, and that is why science keeps disproving bold, false statements made about homonoid fossils.

This is just a red herring, I didn't bring up "junk" DNA here, you did, and I don't think I've ever presented "junk" DNA as anything other than a throwaway term for DNA where an apparent physical purpose was not known. Calling it "junk" was never a scientific conclusion just something catchy that caught on for a while.

That's a little bit of a whitewash, or an attempt to re-write history. Evolutionists as you know referred to non coding DNA with a number of derogatory terms suggesting this flotsam / garbage DNA was evidence of common ancestry.

Exciting discoveries both in coding and non coding DNA are evidence that lead to our Creator.

Then why do blind cave crabs still have eye stalks? Such vestigial conclusions are scientific, not something invented by "evolutionists".

Scientific....uh uh, I don't think so.

So do you believe these crabs have grown eye stalks and the next step is to evolve eyeballs?*

Or do you think their ancestors had eyes, which though mutations and adaptation has been lost?... That is the Biblical creation model.

ERVs are certainly at least convincing IMO

They are convincing because you start with the conclusion then interpret to fit your beliefs. As you have seen, there are scientists who have very different conclusions from yourself.

So too is the common inability to produce vitamin C due to the same genetic mutation that I talked about before, which seems to have passed you by.

It's the same argument and above...and same reply..... and.....
I have commented several times previous about this with comments like, "GULO is slightly different in humans than in other animals so its possible it may have a different function than for vitamin C. Or, it may be it synthesizes VitaminC in utero only and then is switched off...since we were created as vegetarians. Or, it may be GULO truely is broken. As with all the other psuedogenes evolutionists jumped to false conclusions on. GULO may be just one more gene serving regulatory functions, that we don't yet understand.

Surely though you do believe that life arose from non-life even if God did it? I otoh simply assume that life did emerge at least once from non-life since we are here and since I am not aware that miraculous events ever happen.

You seem to believe in miracles.... you assume that life came from non life.*

I 'assume' life came from God, and science does seem to confirm an Intelligent Designer. .. consistent with the Creator God of the Bible.

Science only confirms that complex life cannot spontaneously emerge as it was once thought it could, not that self reproducing molecules could never become life as perhaps they did.

Since the time ever before Miller Urey, scientists have been diligently showing how much intelligence would be required to start life.

This may come as a surprise but I don't regard Stripe as a font of all knowledge.*

I'm sure the feelings are mutual.

 

[6days]

I don't question for a moment that as our understanding of anatomy progressed, it initially was thought that the human appendix did not perform a useful function. But we are years past that now, and it seems that you prefer to focus on that early mistake ...

It isn't just a mistake. It's a pattern of false assumptions made because of a belief system. Then the false assumptions are often used to promote that false belief to school kids.*

*Posts in this thread (and others) have often pointed out that we now understand perfectly well that organs can perform useful functions and still be vestigial.

Vetigial? Hmmmmm. .... it means might be useful...might be useless....might have diminished function since creation?.

Evolutionists like words that are not falsifiable.*

 

[MichaelCadry]

Check This Out:

MORE Biblical Discoveries That The Bible Knew Before Scientists Did


God Gave Us Knowledge About These Discoveries Before Man Re-Discovered Them!

Scientific breakthroughs are being made every year. However, let us take a look at some discoveries that were already known to man before scientists “discovered” them again! God has infinite glory and knowledge and all of these revealed secrets proved it!

Sea Springs Exist Deep Beneath The Sea

“Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep?”
– Job 38:16

“When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed,”
– Proverbs 8:28

Submarine Canyons

“Then the channels of the sea appeared, The foundations of the world were laid bare By the rebuke of the LORD, At the blast of the breath of His nostrils”
– 2 Sam. 22:16

Ocean Currents

The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
– Psalm 8:8

Earth Is A Sphere / Earth Is Not Flat

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
– Isaiah 40:22

Running Water Is Sanitary

Now when the man with the discharge becomes cleansed from his discharge, then he shall count off for himself seven days for his cleansing; he shall then wash his clothes and bathe his body in running water and will become clean.
– Leviticus 15:13

Circumcision Is Sanitary

This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations,
– Genesis 17:10-12

Electricity Would Be The Means Of Communication

“Can you send forth lightnings that they may go And say to you, ‘Here we are’?
– Job 38:35


And Your Input/Feedback!!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

How are you doing Buddy! Hope that all is going well with you and that you are happy!! It's been a while. Sorry we had to debate and all. It happens. Well, Autumn has officially arrived here a couple days ago. I am now wearing sweatpants and blue jeans around the city. I have many colors of sweatpants and even blue jeans. Have you got any snow yet?? We got hail a couple times now, which is ice. So it's like snow! It means it's cold up there, but not quite cold enough down here for it to stay frozen. I suppose the leaves are falling from your trees? Or they have fallen already. I have to get some candy for Halloween tomorrow. I'll have to get to the store before it's too late. There will be a sale on the day after Halloween, so I will also go then. We've been getting more rain than usual. It has been a unique autumn so far! Well, I am going to get going and will PM you. You take good care and get back to me when you can!!

Warmest Wishes & Cheerio, Matey,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

How are you doing Buddy! Hope that all is going well with you and that you are happy!! It's been a while. Sorry we had to debate and all. It happens. Well, Autumn has officially arrived here a couple days ago. I am now wearing sweatpants and blue jeans around the city. I have many colors of sweatpants and even blue jeans. Have you got any snow yet?? We got hail a couple times now, which is ice. So it's like snow! It means it's cold up there, but not quite cold enough down here for it to stay frozen. I suppose the leaves are falling from your trees? Or they have fallen already. I have to get some candy for Halloween tomorrow. I'll have to get to the store before it's too late. There will be a sale on the day after Halloween, so I will also go then. We've been getting more rain than usual. It has been a unique autumn so far! Well, I am going to get going and will PM you. You take good care and get back to me when you can!!

Warmest Wishes & Cheerio, Matey,

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

How are you doing Buddy! Hope that all is going well with you and that you are happy!! It's been a while. Sorry we had to debate and all. It happens. Well, Autumn has officially arrived here a couple days ago. I am now wearing sweatpants and blue jeans around the city. I have many colors of sweatpants and even blue jeans. Have you got any snow yet?? We got hail a couple times now, which is ice. So it's like snow! It means it's cold up there, but not quite cold enough down here for it to stay frozen. I suppose the leaves are falling from your trees? Or they have fallen already. I have to get some candy for Halloween tomorrow. I'll have to get to the store before it's too late. There will be a sale on the day after Halloween, so I will also go then. We've been getting more rain than usual. It has been a unique autumn so far! Well, I am going to get going and will PM you. You take good care and get back to me when you can!!

Warmest Wishes & Cheerio, Matey,

Michael

Thanks Michael I'll respond to your PM later.

 

[alwight]

Peer review will confirm or falsify the scientific status and Dawkins' work is no exception.

Dawkins work?

It was beliefs... not his work that caused Dawkins false conclusions about non coding DNA.*

I would presume that what Dawkins believes is derived from the currently available scientific knowledge, not on something he perhaps wants to believe regardless instead.

Quote:

Well done then on another baseless assertion here 6days.

Oh dear.... surely you must realize there are hundreds of baseless conclusions that evolutionism is built upon.

Do tell.

Let's look at just a couple in what evolutionists think, or thought were transitional ape to human fossils.*

No... rather than list examples I will just quote Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin (book, People of the Lake)
" What fossils tell us directly, of course, is what our ancestors and their close relative look like. Or rather, to be more accurate, they give some clues about the physical appearance of early hominids, because until someone is lucky enough to come across a complete skeleton of one of our ancestors, much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork"

The guesswork (baseless assertions) *is built upon a false belief system, and that is why science keeps disproving bold, false statements made about homonoid fossils.

More nonsense. Of course some of the detail is speculation, such a book is supposed to be also entertaining and to fire the imagination of ordinary people. Creationists simply home in on words like "guesswork" as they endeavour to quote mine from a now nearly 40 year old book of supposedly recent finds.

This is just a red herring, I didn't bring up "junk" DNA here, you did, and I don't think I've ever presented "junk" DNA as anything other than a throwaway term for DNA where an apparent physical purpose was not known. Calling it "junk" was never a scientific conclusion just something catchy that caught on for a while.

That's a little bit of a whitewash, or an attempt to re-write history. Evolutionists as you know referred to non coding DNA with a number of derogatory terms suggesting this flotsam / garbage DNA was evidence of common ancestry.

Exciting discoveries both in coding and non coding DNA are evidence that lead to our Creator.

Yes, I accept that there may be some truth in that "junk DNA" was sometimes cited as wasteful and perhaps an example of poor design, if designed it was. But since I'm no geneticist then I don't think I ever suggested that specifically, but if I did then it now seems that I would have been wrong. I am however glad for having better information now available and have already taken it on board.
Since Darwinian evolution is typically harsh, ruthless and parsimonious, having such a built in "uselessness" or redundancy always struck me as being somewhat out of step, so there being a discovered use for much of non coding DNA seems very reasonable to me and very much more in keeping with evolution.

Then why do blind cave crabs still have eye stalks? Such vestigial conclusions are scientific, not something invented by "evolutionists".

Scientific....uh uh, I don't think so.

So do you believe these crabs have grown eye stalks and the next step is to evolve eyeballs?*

Or do you think their ancestors had eyes, which though mutations and adaptation has been lost?... That is the Biblical creation model.

Clearly in Darwinian evolution eye stalks would not evolve in anticipation of later evolving eyes, if however they did then that might well suggest some intelligent designing going on.
But you seem to think that apparently created crabs would all have had eyes but those happening to live in dark caves are somehow Biblically predicted to lose them if not their eye stalks?

ERVs are certainly at least convincing IMO

They are convincing because you start with the conclusion then interpret to fit your beliefs. As you have seen, there are scientists who have very different conclusions from yourself.

No I don't. As I understand the accepted science, the chances that a randomly acquired ERV being found inserted at exactly the same place in two different species is vanishingly small, unless they were once the same species and that there was only one infection event. When there are more than one such ERV present then rationally there really can't be any doubt at all.
If however I have misunderstood the accepted science somehow then let's hear who says otherwise and how this "evolutionist" has made it fit my supposed belief? If the science is wrong then the fault is perhaps rather more with science than "evolutionists", so let's hear about the better explanation, we may all learn something.

So too is the common inability to produce vitamin C due to the same genetic mutation that I talked about before, which seems to have passed you by.

It's the same argument and above...and same reply..... and.....
I have commented several times previous about this with comments like, "GULO is slightly different in humans than in other animals so its possible it may have a different function than for vitamin C. Or, it may be it synthesizes VitaminC in utero only and then is switched off...since we were created as vegetarians. Or, it may be GULO truely is broken. As with all the other psuedogenes evolutionists jumped to false conclusions on. GULO may be just one more gene serving regulatory functions, that we don't yet understand.

But I simply look to science to provide a rational and reasonable answer, I at least am not trying to invent possible alternative scenarios.
Where other creatures can manufacture vitamin C, humans can't because the gene that does it for other creatures has slightly changed in us and has become dysfunctional. Hedgehogs and guinea pigs apparently also have a similar dysfunction but in their case this same gene is slightly differently mutated. That to my knowledge is the accepted science not an invention of "evolutionists".

Surely though you do believe that life arose from non-life even if God did it? I otoh simply assume that life did emerge at least once from non-life since we are here and since I am not aware that miraculous events ever happen.

You seem to believe in miracles.... you assume that life came from non life.*

I 'assume' life came from God, and science does seem to confirm an Intelligent Designer. .. consistent with the Creator God of the Bible.

You are of course entitled to believe whatever you want, with or without using reason and rationality.

Science only confirms that complex life cannot spontaneously emerge as it was once thought it could, not that self reproducing molecules could never become life as perhaps they did.

Since the time ever before Miller Urey, scientists have been diligently showing how much intelligence would be required to start life.

That's what you believe anyway.

This may come as a surprise but I don't regard Stripe as a font of all knowledge.*

I'm sure the feelings are mutual.

Yes me too, the Stripe seal of disapproval is not to be sniffed at.

 

[Interplanner]

"Evolution theory that was already being tested in the 19th century could not get any traction until the belief that there was a virtually infinite supply of time available. Hutton, Lyell, etc. believed they had found that. But what is more important, and less objective about them, is that they wanted to believe that to undercut the Christian message. That is what Lyell said in letters to friends 3-4 years before PRINCIPLES. The whole enterprise is built on a desired outcome no matter what they found in the field."
--M. Malone, geologist on world flood catastrophic evidence, abridged

If you really know Darwin, you know that he didn't want the emerging model to become the prevailing view. It was the racism of that group, as exhibited on how the original cover finally read after T. Huxley's overruling actions. The struggle (later the 'kampf' in German) was first mentioned there.

"Just off-hand, there are probably 10 reasons, therefore, that these scientists will never come to terms with things readily known about the Naszca, Peru, area.
*The giantism that was said to be destroyed by a world flood because the giants used their technology primarily for killing,
*the advanced technology,
*the legend structure that is nearly a perfect match to Genesis,
*the visit of a person named 'Tomas' with tablets or writings about the Christian Gospel without a trace of explanation for how he physically arrived,
*the belief that a world flood would never again take place but a 'son' of the god would instead suffer the god's anger,
*the small modern human skulls found in tertiary layers of earth,
*the patinazation of the 11,000 burnished burial stones,
*the third of those burial stones which show humans on, and with, dinosaurs,
*the completely modern rendition of those dinosaurs even though the burial artwork is from about 6000 years ago,
*the mysterious limitation of access to the Jenkins collection of Naszca stones,
*the details on the Naszca spider rock lines that could only have been produced with microscopic technology,
*the knowledge of earthquake-protection in stone construction that is matched in odd-places around the world (evidence of a very quick separation of 'pangaea')
*the poured metal staples found to join stone-work almost only matched in remote locations of Thailand, for ex."
--Matton and Wright on world deluge evidence in Peru, abridged

"One of the inexplicable mistakes of this group of scientists, obviously because they made way too many projections and declarations before they had proper information, was due to Darwin's feed-back about his stop at Rio Santa Cruz, Argentina. The Beagle crew sat there looking up the Cruz valley and Darwin read PRINCIPLES at night and tried to integrate the two. But instead of realizing that the violent movement of ice and water could produce the Cruz in a short time, Darwin felt compelled to refer to its existence due to millions. The problem is that is not how things look due to millions of years, just as it is not how they look due to that size of the Cruz, meandering slowly in a width that is one-tenth of the footprint of the valley floor. Huge universal declarations were made before they even knew what 'meandering' meant geologically and hydrologically."
--Matton and Wright, abridged

 

[DavisBJ]

Vetigial? Hmmmmm. .... it means might be useful...might be useless....might have diminished function since creation?.

Evolutionists like words that are not falsifiable.

I see. When it comes to an idea in biology that supports common descent, then the scientific community is incompetent in the terminology it uses. As you have shown, you would prefer that instead of actually describing what is observed, they should use wording that will implicitly allow you to disprove it.

I envision you walking into a scientific conference at which vestigiality is one of the subjects, and announcing that creationists object to the way they describe it, and they are cowards for choosing the terminology they have. Probably take 20 minutes for the laughter to die down enough for the meeting to go on. Truly amazing that a huge number of scientists get along just fine with the way that vestigiality is understood and described. And true to form, once again 6days trots out the “not falsifiable” canard.

 

[DavisBJ]

Check This Out:

MORE Biblical Discoveries That The Bible Knew Before Scientists Did

God Gave Us Knowledge About These Discoveries Before Man Re-Discovered Them!

Scientific breakthroughs are being made every year. However, let us take a look at some discoveries that were already known to man before scientists “discovered” them again! God has infinite glory and knowledge and all of these revealed secrets proved it!

Sea Springs Exist Deep Beneath The Sea
…
Submarine Canyons
…
And Your Input/Feedback!!!

Dear Michael,

You asked for feedback, OK. I don’t expect much from you, but in this post you surpassed my expectations (in a negative way). You clearly have no standards that must be met for you to love (and post) “rah rah Bible nonsense”. It is sad that, metaphorically speaking, when it comes to science you can’t or don’t even try to differentiate between a cup of hot soup and a cup of steaming vomit.