Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[total relism]

What have all these relgious spam threads got to do with politics?

Talk with other members of the community about any topic, including civil discussions about politics and religion.

[Gilrandir]

No I was raised catholic [i am not] and through school an evolutionist. They never mentioned creation vs evolution and cant understand why so many young people leave the church, "just preach the gospel" of course this is just what the liberals want.

So? You just changed ranks and files within which you march. But in your defense: everybody of us marches within some rank, only they don't like to admit it.

Belief.

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements

"truth" and "reality" are not about religion. The latter is about faith. And pay attention to the bolded example.

Indeed science has moved forward because of christian men with a christian worldview. And as i showed, science would make no sense if evolution were true, it would not be possible. By the way, do you know who invented Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanner was a creationist.

So? How can it corroborate your claim that I can't see my brain?

Here is a list i found online of all the biblical references to who he appeared to including the 500.
http://factsandfaith.com/the-witness...s-crucifixion/

Looked through the list. Dicovered that those who saw Jesus after death mentioned by apostles (the eyewitnesses) are in fact apostles themselves + a dozen of women = all in all not exceeding, say twenty/thirty people. The only ones described in the Gospel. All the rest are reported by the self-styled apostle Paul who didn't know Jesus when he was alive. I have an impression that he was a rather scandalous person evicted from many cities.

I would rather you read my thread to correct your false analogies/assumptions/history [its all in their] and you can post anything on that thread related.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e-Inquisitions

For you all unpleasant analogies/history are false.

As for the catholic church, I never said it never did wrong, i am not catholic.

Nice! First you protect it (namely Crusades), speak about generousity of Popes (Urban VIII and Galilei) and when the position on some invidious issues in untenable you weasel out saying that CATHOLOC church is not your cup of tea.

And speaking of Galilei. All goodwill Urban showed to him and of which you are so enamoured happened BEFORE Galilei displeased Urban with his writings and scientific findings, so Urban actually sanctioned what was done to Galilei years later.

I am a biblical creationist I believe everything was created to reproduce after its own kind, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc There is alot of variety in these animals so that a dog, coyote, and wolf have a common ancestor, but it was from the original dog kind, they have know varied and produce the many kinds today. But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.

How come modern animals are not found as old fossils? Why not admit that species can evolve being once created?

[total relism]

So? You just changed ranks and files within which you march. But in your defense: everybody of us marches within some rank, only they don't like to admit it.



"truth" and "reality" are not about religion. The latter is about faith. And pay attention to the bolded example.


So? How can it corroborate your claim that I can't see my brain?




Looked through the list. Dicovered that those who saw Jesus after death mentioned by apostles (the eyewitnesses) are in fact apostles themselves + a dozen of women = all in all not exceeding, say twenty/thirty people. The only ones described in the Gospel. All the rest are reported by the self-styled apostle Paul who didn't know Jesus when he was alive. I have an impression that he was a rather scandalous person evicted from many cities.



For you all unpleasant analogies/history are false.



Nice! First you protect it (namely Crusades), speak about generousity of Popes (Urban VIII and Galilei) and when the position on some invidious issues in untenable you weasel out saying that CATHOLOC church is not your cup of tea.

And speaking of Galilei. All goodwill Urban showed to him and of which you are so enamoured happened BEFORE Galilei displeased Urban with his writings and scientific findings, so Urban actually sanctioned what was done to Galilei years later.





How come modern animals are not found as old fossils? Why not admit that species can evolve being once created?

you could look at it that way. There is nobody i fully agree with or march with. But i see it as others followed a different path [maybe very close] and ended up at the same or similar place. So i think many independent thinking people agree 2 plus 2 is 4.



Right, I believe science is true, therefore evolution cannot be.


or the 500 who saw him.



glad we have that settled.



i defend what is true rather than believe lies of the church and defend what i think is good of the church like the crusades.


Modern animals are found in "young layers" plus your question is based on circular reasoning assuming the layers. See under age of earth and fossils/geological column. Further no many modern "species" would not be found as they have come about recently, but many of the the kinds are found. Their is a certain amount of change that has happened in every kind of animal [not upward complexity change]. See under biblical creation and natural selection, speciation and mutations. 79% of living families have been found so far in column 87.7% of birds 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented in fossil record 79.1% of living family land vertebrates.

[Gilrandir]

or the 500 who saw him.

A thousand times five hundred saw Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China. Does it make the walk a real event?

Further no many modern "species" would not be found as they have come about recently

So since the Universe is about 7000 years old modern animals are about that age?

[Elmetiacos]

Talk with other members of the community about any topic, including civil discussions about politics and religion.

So it says, my mistake. Some of your posts are of a length approaching spamdom, though.

[total relism]

A thousand times five hundred saw Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China. Does it make the walk a real event?




So since the Universe is about 7000 years old modern animals are about that age?

? no animal is more than 10,000.

[Elmetiacos]

By the way "Malcolm maggeridge" in your sig should be Malcolm_Muggeridge and he didn't originate the saying: it's usually attributed to G K Chesterton The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything, but it was probably his biographer Emile Cammaerts who actually originated it.

[total relism]

By the way "Malcolm maggeridge" in your sig should be Malcolm_Muggeridge and he didn't originate the saying: it's usually attributed to G K Chesterton The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything, but it was probably his biographer Emile Cammaerts who actually originated it.

Thanks for the correction. Both great men of God.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

? no animal is more than 10,000.

There are days I feel older...

[Fragony]

Reading a fun book 'Sapiens a history of Mankind' by Yuval Noah Hariri, bssicly a summary of just about everything. addresses almost everything talked about here, great for if you want to look smart with minimal effort

[Gilrandir]

So it says, my mistake. Some of your posts are of a length approaching spamdom Old Testament

? no animal is more than 10,000.

I mean species. Even mammoths and dinosaurs?

[total relism]

I mean species. Even mammoths and dinosaurs?

species have developed at various times through history.

[Pannonian]

species have developed at various times through history.

Hang on. Are you admitting to heretical thoughts of evolution?

[total relism]

Hang on. Are you admitting to heretical thoughts of evolution?

It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc

[Pannonian]

It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc

Is Abrahamic Creationism the only alternative explanation for the world that we should study though? How much study should there be into the ancient Egyptian belief that the world came (literally) about after the creator Atum fapped it into being? What do John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin think of the Atumic model of creation? Sort of like:

"For six days and nights Atum fapped vigorously, and on the seventh day he came and so we were."
-some punk poster on some internet forum 2017

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1.1

[total relism]

Is Abrahamic Creationism the only alternative explanation for the world that we should study though? How much study should there be into the ancient Egyptian belief that the world came (literally) about after the creator Atum fapped it into being? What do John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin think of the Atumic model of creation? Sort of like:

"For six days and nights Atum fapped vigorously, and on the seventh day he came and so we were."
-some punk poster on some internet forum 2017

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1.1

well of course they should all be studied and tested.

[Elmetiacos]

It is sad to see what indoctrination can produce.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


see post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc

Post 39 is absolutely riddled with holes. It's got intellectual woodworm. Where to start?

Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man, complex structures evolving, the big bang, the origin of life or fish turning into amphibians. Nor can we test Noah flood or the creation week. These are both religious worldviews competing for how to understand the world around us in our time. One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe and normal processes. The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, catastrophe both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.

Nobody is arguing that a monkey evolves into a man or that a fish turns into an amphibian. That would be magic.
We can test the "Noah flood" simply by observing and measuring that there isn't enough water in the world for it to have happened, the change in the atmosphere needed to support the stated volume of water in the stated time would have made the air unbreathable and it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time.
Nobody is arguing that the World created itself, creation implies agency and the World is not seen as an agent - unless you are one of the more extreme advocates of the Gaia hypothesis.

This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion. For example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact that is observable. Based on the belief system of the researcher one says look, it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, uniformitarnism, slowly over millions of years. One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood, than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years. Than another researcher says wow, look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need the bible is true. The evidence is the same the conclusion is different based on their worldview.

No, your conclusion is reliant on your world view. When geology was in its infancy, people did not set out to use it to prove the World was very old, this conclusion was drawn from the evidence. In order to reject the conclusion, you must believe that geology is wrong, that geology is pseudoscience, for which of course, you cannot provide any proper evidence.

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated”

Yes, it is.

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time.

No, they don't and no they don't. It looks like that to you, because you still have a the mediaeval "chain of being" view of living creatures, descending from God from complexity to simplicity. Evolution does not say organisms become "more complex" only that genetic mutation is inherited according to the environment. Most of the rest of the post makes the same mistake.

[Pannonian]

well of course they should all be studied and tested.

Has the Abrahamic model of creation been tested? What was the test, and what were the results? Have they been replicated by other scientists around the world?

[total relism]

Post 39 is absolutely riddled with holes. It's got intellectual woodworm. Where to start?

Thanks for taking the time to read some of my material, most as you can see have not. Finally some discussion on topic.

Nobody is arguing that a monkey evolves into a man or that a fish turns into an amphibian. That would be magic.

Yes my apologies i should clarify, evolution says over millions of years [their magic creator see op] "evolves" a monkey kind type ancestor into a human and "evolves" a fish into an amphibian, just my point in my op.

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life

We can test the "Noah flood" simply by observing and measuring that there isn't enough water in the world for it to have happened, the change in the atmosphere needed to support the stated volume of water in the stated time would have made the air unbreathable and it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time.
Nobody is arguing that the World created itself, creation implies agency and the World is not seen as an agent - unless you are one of the more extreme advocates of the Gaia hypothesis.

I must admit your test is not the best. If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km. So here is the water you seek.



During the flood

"The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them."
-Psalm 104.8

The bile indicates the crust was one big continent before the flood. God gathered the waters together into “one place,” separate from the dry land.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
That is why every creation flood model involved the movement of earths crust in some manner.
-Gen 1 9-10


This is why every major creation flood model involves earths crust movements.



you claimed "it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time. " could you tell me how long god had to send animals to noah? from what distance? and show me how it would not work. I shall than show the faults in your claim.

No, your conclusion is reliant on your world view. When geology was in its infancy, people did not set out to use it to prove the World was very old, this conclusion was drawn from the evidence. In order to reject the conclusion, you must believe that geology is wrong, that geology is pseudoscience, for which of course, you cannot provide any proper evidence.

Nor would I. Geology disproves an old earth. Know geology first switched to uniformtarnism because of Lyell. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:

I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible

Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P .S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.


So not only are evolutionist bias today, so they were at the beginning.


“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university


“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.

Yes, it is.
[B

[/B]


Dont wait for me support the claim logically and scientifically.

No, they don't and no they don't. It looks like that to you, because you still have a the mediaeval "chain of being" view of living creatures, descending from God from complexity to simplicity. Evolution does not say organisms become "more complex" only that genetic mutation is inherited according to the environment. Most of the rest of the post makes the same mistake.

well if that is all that is meant by evolutionist, than I am one. This thread only applies to those who believe similar to Darwin, that all life shares a common ancestor and evolution explains the diversity of all life.

[total relism]

Has the Abrahamic model of creation been tested? What was the test, and what were the results? Have they been replicated by other scientists around the world?

see op for various ways it has been tested. I give post numbers for various topics.

[Elmetiacos]

In the end then, your "argument" boils down to "IT'S MAGIC".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In the end then, your "argument" boils down to "IT'S MAGIC".

Nature of argumentation. ALL arguments boil down to their 'givens.' If you don't accept those, you won't consider the argument valid no matter how well supported.

[total relism]

In the end then, your "argument" boils down to "IT'S MAGIC".

Yeah I have tried to get the evolutionist to support their position but really they must resort to magic and miracles. Ask for evidence and it is always hid millions of years in the past.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life

[Pannonian]

Yeah I have tried to get the evolutionist to support their position but really they must resort to magic and miracles. Ask for evidence and it is always hid millions of years in the past.

Penicillin was introduced for mass use in time for the invasion of France in June 1944. Lots of diseases are now not treatable by that strain of penicillin.

see op for various ways it has been tested. I give post numbers for various topics.

Can you give one clear example as I've done above?

[total relism]

Penicillin was introduced for mass use in time for the invasion of France in June 1944. Lots of diseases are now not treatable by that strain of penicillin.



Can you give one clear example as I've done above?

How is this a test of evolution? if you read my post 23

Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”




But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.



H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011




I chose not to give such a poor examples for creation, but I do give some predictions see post post 40.

[Pannonian]

How is this a test of evolution? if you read my post 23

Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”

But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011

I chose not to give such a poor examples for creation, but I do give some predictions see post post 40.

You wot? You lost me at the beginning with the talk of gains and losses, then my brain was comprehensively scrambled with your hunter in a trap analogy, then my jaw dropped beyond retrieval when you posted those proof links from creationresearch.org. I audibly gasped in disbelief when you stated that antibody-resistant genes were found 30k years prior to penicillin, as "conclusive proof". The point is so far missed that I can't believe anyone could post the above with any sincerity, yet you evidently have.

[Gilrandir]

species have developed at various times through history.

So dinosaurs and mammoths have succeded in developing and getting extinct in 7000 years?
And why 7000 years? According to the Jewish calendar it is under 5800. Do you mean the universe is that old?

bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were [B]found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

I'm afraid you can't operate any dates which go beyond the 5800.

[Elmetiacos]

How is this a test of evolution? if you read my post 23

Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution” formation that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

Gngngngng! Evolution is not about transmission of information! Why are you obsessed with this false concept?

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution...

In the first place, no it wasn't and in the second place, so what? That's like saying you can't believe the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides without also believing the souls of the dead can inhabit beans.

[total relism]

So dinosaurs and mammoths have succeded in developing and getting extinct in 7000 years?
And why 7000 years? According to the Jewish calendar it is under 5800. Do you mean the universe is that old?



I'm afraid you can't operate any dates which go beyond the 5800.

Yes, and I the age would be a debate on chronology not something i care to much for. I go with 10,000 as that is usually the max age given by conservative scholars. If you want arguments for those chronologies see here.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-articles

[total relism]

Gngngngng! Evolution is not about transmission of information! Why are you obsessed with this false concept?


In the first place, no it wasn't and in the second place, so what? That's like saying you can't believe the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides without also believing the souls of the dead can inhabit beans.

Never said it was about transition of information. I said it was about the origins of all life and complexity. And i was just saying at that time it was understood as it is, not an increase in complexity or a mechanism by witch evolution could exspalin development of higher organisms.