Who likes evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

The mechanism is movement of the plates away from the super-continent to approximately where they are now. Tidal waves would be caused by the upheval of the sea basins, "waters of the deep". See John Baumgardner's website, http://globalflood.org/ , his model is one of the more generally accepted among modern creation scientists. I've looked into attempted refutations of it, and they are just general mocking like what Arthur Dent and Saintetienne do.

Your wrong, the exact number is 1.21 picoseconds.

Some species like the coelacanth have been around for millions of years. A mammal like a rabbit could not have been around in the Cambrian period under current assumptions. I was trying suggest that evidence indicating a static fossil record, other than maybe a few extinctions, since the beginning of time would disprove evolution. Although 4 billion years ago, there would of been no life on earth at all, so finding such a fossil would disprove evolution but as far as I know there is no such fossil.

If evolution by natural selection is correct, it won't be. I was answering the question of what will falsify evolution.

I think the times when thing are supposed to have occurred would just be adjusted. The fossil record is the evidence of when things existed, so if a fossil were found below when it is normally found, then the timing of when it is found would be cataloged and adjusted.

A claim as strong (and blatantly false) as immutability of species is easier to find among individual creationists I've spoken to. Most creationist organizations have, at least in recent years, backed down from such a stance by making some sort of claim about "kinds" and allowing change within kinds. (I take it a "kind" is roughly equivalent to a genus? Not sure, creationists aren't always so good about defining their terminology) Just go to talkorigins and see what's posted- they cite their sources clearly enough.

A "kind" in creation science is called a "baramin" and it gets more technical from there. (The word baramin comes from Hebrew bara- "created" and -min "kind, sort, type")

If you wish to read a paper on it, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... nology.htm

All right then, and change can occur to create different species within these "baramin?" So, for instance, a creationist could accept common ancestry of wolves and domestic dogs, of lions and tigers, of different species of frogs, and of certain closely related tree species?

I dunno, at this point you've accepted just about everything there is in evolution except for the obvious generalization to a larger scale of changes. If you can accept common descent for species in the same genus, it's fairly trivial to generalize that to families, then orders and phyla, and finally kingdoms and domains.

Congrats at not opening the link or bothering to put any effort in yet again. The answer is "yes".



http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

This may be somehow unrelated but..........

I tend to see a problem here besides the terminology comming from Hebrew language, the issue is why they have to use hebrew language for such term, and the question lies, is that a scientific reason or a religious one? as well as the link provided which mentions the Bible as part of their argument.


I mean, articles with statements like that start to lose credibility as being scientifically valid, rather they look religious (using one biblical interpretation among others for that matter) and the use of scientific terms to justify the belief, not to attack the mere belief but that line seems clear. I personally don't accept something as scientifically valid when there is clearly an inmense bias, such as this.

The words "holo", "apo", "mono", and "poly" are not from Hebrew, but why would it matter where the roots of words used in nomenclature derive from?

Yes, it quotes from the Bible to show theological consistency along with the scientific formulation, a practice which has been going on since Bacon.

Each of the claims in that site countains a "Source" which takes you to a creationist making the claim.

Well, the issue of which is prettier and which someone likes better is subjective and may have different reasons why some prefer one over the other. I agree with the notion that evolution has nothing to like about by itself other than explaining reality as AG said. On one hand, I could say that one could intelectually like Evolution (the theory) better than Creationism or ID because of its validity and because it works properly, I mean, the reasons why the scientific community rejects ID is very clear, so yeah, many people would like the theory of evolution better because the other proposed theory just doesn't work.

On the other hand, there is the reason for Creationists to reject Evolution, and it is very clear that the root of the problem is the literal intepretation of the Bible which the theory of Evolution contradicts, "therefore evolution must be false". That I believe is very much the root of everything and that is part of the problem, the religious root and religious implications are there, and I see that as objectionable enough to consider it scientifically valid, the reasons are not entirely scientific but religious, from my perspective. I agree with Orwell that the "Creation Science" terminology is contradictory.

I used to be a Creationist, so yeah I have a pretty good idea of the reasons to reject Evolution and it would be because of several reasons, contradiction to the belief of an infallible (interpretation of the) Bible, its existential implications such as the purpose of man, life, death, the idea of an early and a future utopian paradise to come, all of that from an established dogma that I followed, evolution undermined my faith, therefore I had nothing else that reject it.

As a Creationist, which would seem prettier to me? Not evolution.

Last edited by greenblue on 03 Dec 2009, 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I did skim the article. Just wanted to confirm that I wasn't misrepresenting your claims.


A well-written article, I'll give it that. Still, it would only be convincing to people who really haven't studied biology at an advanced level. We have observed novel traits emerging, and good arguments have been given as to possible courses of development for various new structures, including eyes, wings, etc.

Evolution is one crazy wonderful journey

I agree with three out of six words in this sentence.