Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 25 2010,19:23) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:31) | | And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology. |
To qualify as science, there must be conceivable results that would refute the Creation position on baraminology. Please give us an example of possible data that would make you reconsider the Creationist position (equivalent to the Pre-Cambrian rabbit). |
1- The pre-cambrian rabbit is pure bullshit
But you don't have to take my word for that just ask David Heddle
2- I don't buy the Creation position. I am just saying that that is what the evidence supports.
But what would refute it? Something that supports the premise that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give ris eto novel protein machienery AND novel body parts and novel body plans.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
