Creationism an Option?

[The_Barbarian]

Well, for one, genes die out, and deteriorate.

Some are billions of years old. That seems rather durable to me. They change over time, but some of them always seem to survive.

They don’t somehow appear out of nowhere, as macro-evolution suggests.

You’ve been misled about that. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims.

And for another thing, every know mutation has been a bad thing! It doesn’t make anything better… heavens, no.

It’s been directly observed to happen. Would you like some examples?

And, like I said before, why are there no half-and-half animals today?

Platypus. Mammalian fur, mostly mammalian skeleton, but has reptilian shoulder bones, a cloaca instead of the mammalian urogenital system, and lays reptillian eggs. (the “beak” isn’t birdlike at all, but somewhat resembles that of hadrosaurs) It has a halfway mammalian temperature regulation system, but not quite as mammalian as ours. Pretty close to perfectly intermediate.

Lungfish. They are fishlike, but have leglike fins, internal nares, lungs, and are genetically closer to us than to other fish.

Many other examples exist.

Why aren’t there any in the fossil record?

Millions of those in the fossil record. One interesting one recently found in amber was the fossil of a transitional between ants and other hymenopterans. An entire group of transitionals between whales and ungulates has been found. Transitionals between birds and dinosaurs are abundant now. Transitionals between canids and felids are known, as are transitionals between dogs and bears. Even transitionals between horses and rhinos.

Many more exist. Would you like to learn about some of them?

And most evidence points to the earth being younger that evolutionist say, like the fact that the sun would have expanded and consumed our earth by now if the solar system is as old as the evolutionists say.

Not according to astronomy and physics. If physics has it right (and all the evidence says it does) the sun is about halfway through its life as a main sequence star, with about 4-5 billion years to go before it begins an expansion to a red giant. Right now, it fluctuates a bit from time to time, getting larger or smaller by a tiny amount, but its going to be pretty stable for a long, long time.

As someone else showed you, the bombardier beetle story has been repeatedly debunked. Even the ICR now admits that they were hornswoggled by misunderstanding an account of the chemical reactions. Even the most evolved of bombardier beetles don’t have a system that “blows up.”

And they exist in all stages of evolution of this system. If you like,we can discuss that group, and how they are at different stages.

BTW, I won’t insult you by calling you a fundamentalist, but I can understand why some might make that error, if you persistantly use fundamentalist claims against evolution. They are, as you see, consistently wrong. There are yet unresolved issues in evolution (as there are in chemistry, physics, and all sciences) but the fundamentalists seem completely clueless about what they are.

 

[Orogeny]

As I stated before, I am not on either side at this time! I wanted both sides to present their arguments; when no one took your challenge, I decided to voice what I had heard from the other side. Yet you are hell-bent on winning for the sake of gloating, even though I stated I’m neutral in this dispute.

Sorry, but you are not neutral in this discussion. You may be undecided, but you clearly are not neutral.

And then you go and throw the Fundamentalist label at me again, even though I said I was not on either side! I wanted to see both arguements from both sides!

You need to read things a bit more closely. I noted fundamentalist sources. If you don’t want to be labeled a fundamentalist, don’t post exclusively fundamentalist propaganda.

I think you owe me an apology.

You won’t be getting one from me on this issue. I am not guilty of that which you accuse me of.

I’m abandoning this thread, because it seem that the evolutionist side (as well as the creationist side to a certain extent) love vitriol, gloating, and denouncing the other side as moronic know-nothings. I thought this would be a constructive way to hear both sides, but all I got was stereophonic denouncements. I won’t try this again…

Well, it does get a bit old being told that we are athiests, stupid, easily misled or that our faith is poorly formed. Of course, those things may be true of some of us, they don’t really help the discussion at all, do they. So if you want to start a thread about this topic, don’t be surprised at the reaction when you post things like the bombardier beetle or that all every known mutation is a bad thing.

Peace

Tim

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.