Yes, I've seen those claims. No Biblical basis, and postulates an extremely rapid evolution for which there is no fossil record- or mention of in the Bible, for that matter. Abel was a shepherd, as was Abraham. They both presumably had sheep (actually, the text says they did). I am not sure where and when the pre-sheep kind are supposed to come in.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I've seen those claims. No Biblical basis, and postulates an extremely rapid evolution for which there is no fossil record- or mention of in the Bible, for that matter. Abel was a shepherd, as was Abraham. They both presumably had sheep (actually, the text says they did). I am not sure where and when the pre-sheep kind are supposed to come in.
How long after the Flood did Abraham live? Maybe the megaspeed evolution took place then?
Cross Reference
New member
Well, thank your for the non-answer. The suggestion has been made by others that the various kinds that came off the Ark "adapted" quickly to the new earth left by the Flood. Just trying to nail down the time frame.
Cross Reference
New member
Time frame?? You have no time frame to work with. Ergo, you have nothing. .LOL!!
6days
New member
Jonahdog has been answered many times. He seems to have caught a case of JoseFly forgetfulness. The time frame of creation and the flood is pretty clear from the genealogies.
6days
New member
Easy answers..... Rapid adaptation has not stopped today. There is a thread on the topic listing several examples of evolutionists being "shocked". But, of course as genetic information is lost (via natural selection) there is less ability to adapt....greater chance of extinction.
6days
New member
Fallacy of equivocation.
Observable adaptation, based on pre-existing genetic information and mechanisms, is not the same as the Unobservable belief in common ancestry.
Cross Reference
New member
And the system of things as they were from the beginning of recorded history hasn't changed in 6k yrs with human nature remaining unaltered nor the 4 seasons for 5k yrs +/- a few. LOL! There is a rainbow to prove it.
6days
New member
Yes.... It's called evidence.
Its logic that a BMW is better than a Lada because of design.
6days
New member
All true.
However, as evidenced here in TOL, evolutionism is a religion. Evolutionists defend their faith and attempt to get converts.
Dr. Michael Ruse, a atheist and hard core evolutionists says “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality …. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
Canadian National Post (May 13, 2000)
In the Australian Skeptics magazine, 'The Southern Skeptic', "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God."
Catch that??? No matter how good the evidence is supporting creation, they won't believe!!
Rosenritter
New member
Note the logical fallacy employed by Jdog. Reader's Digest is not the researcher nor employed the research. It is simply a commonplace media source that many people have access to. Attacking RD is a straw man. The actual point remains, that regardless of lip service to evolution the research scientists presumed design as they approached the problem.
My understanding of the Darwinist viewpoint (and they can correct me if I am wrong) is that evolution must have happened. The observed facts ruling out evolution, whether it be the fossil record or genetic data or whatever does not fit in with their holy text, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, just get ignored.
All of this dickering over mechanisms is irrelevant. It makes no difference how it happened. If it happened, Darwinites and evolutionists have a problem: It did not happen, and they can't deal with it. So they get involved in arguments about mechanisms and statistics, since they can't deal with the facts refuting evolutionism.
Of course you mocked the source; that's the only recourse you have, save another fallacy.
All of this dickering over mechanisms is irrelevant. It makes no difference how it happened. If it happened, Darwinites and evolutionists have a problem: It did not happen, and they can't deal with it. So they get involved in arguments about mechanisms and statistics, since they can't deal with the facts refuting evolutionism.
Darwinists hate reading.
Doubling down on your irrational nonsense wasn't the way to go. :nono:
Nope. There was an idea expressed. The source was irrelevant. That's how a rational discussion works.
Of course you mocked the source; that's the only recourse you have, save another fallacy.
The challenge remains open: Things look designed, therefore it is reasonable to believe there was a designer.
citation please to the article
Jose Fly
New member
So you're saying they started with the assumption that human breast milk was "designed"? Can you quote from the article where they say that?
In what context were those terms used?
Do you have that issue?
6days
New member
Things intelligently designed are easy to detect. Evolutionists are encouraged by the pope of atheism to call it the appearance of design... He says things look designed, but aren't. Sort of like a BMW...it looks like it's been designed.
Jose Fly
New member
It depends on which creationists you're talking to and what day of the week it is (they like to change their stories from day to day). As 6days keeps describing, in order to go from a single breeding pair of each "kind" to all its descendant species in just a few thousand years you need new species to arise very rapidly and regularly.
Now how does that happen if evolution never, ever, ever occurs? How do you go from a single pair representing the "cat kind" to leopards, tigers, cheetahs, and all the other species in the family? It can't be via evolution, so it must be via........? :idunno:
Then of course there's the pesky little fact that (as I noted) evolution occurs all the time right before our eyes. How do creationists deal with that? They declare it to just be "adaptation" or "microevolution". But ask them what the difference is between "adaptation" and "evolution" and you'll see so much dancing you'll think it's a party. And naturally "microevolution" is evolution, since it has the term "evolution" in it!
It helps to understand that creationism is simply a type of denialism. It has no scientific merit on its own (as evidenced by its absolute lack of contributions to science in the last couple of centuries) and exists solely as a religious belief that flies in the face of observed reality. That's why when you try and get them to explain what this "creation model" even is and/or detail the evidence that supports it, they scramble around doing everything they can to turn the discussion back to evolution. When they've done that, then they can go back to the much more natural "deny, deny, deny" mode.
Jose Fly
New member
By what evidence did you determine that breast milk is "designed"?
- Status