Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Thread for Christopher Gieschen

Pages: (10) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,17:06    Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15) To oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, First of all let me say for the record that I agree with your screen name all the way.  God is not old, He is timeless as He exists outside of this time/space universe.  Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father. I am not fooled by any misma.  But all the evidence I look at, which I interpret through my worldview lens, (All people do have a worldview lens of one sort or another.) is seen as confirming what I know to be true about origins...namely this : the universe did not put itself together, nor did the information-rich molecule DNA do so, nor are we the products of a mindless-uplanned process. Science demands an observer and a log.  God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.  Evolution says that no one was there to observe and there is no log book (other than what we can see in nature).  Nature says that specified information does not put itself together. I hope this explains where I am coming from.  Now please answer this.  Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science? thanks for coming. You ask   Quote  Now please answer this.  Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science? In partial answer I give you another quote of yours   Quote We just ignore conclusions and interpretations not found in our worldview. And how can you say that our worldview is wrong? Link What method are you using to determine what conclusions and interpretations to reject? I'm not saying your worldview is wrong. 100% of the evidence and 99.999% of scientists are. Do you have some sort of privileged access? Who controls what your worldview allows? It must have a gatekeeper. After all, it sprang from somewhere. It must have changed over the generations. This "worldview". Your meme.   You also note Quote We have our own science conferences, heated debates, and blogging just as the evos do. Will there be any practical results from it? Something useful? A creationist device harnessing the power of prayer to heal the sick maybe? It all seems to be centered on attacking "darwinism" is there any actual development going on somewhere? Some lab with *equipment*? The evos have science conferences, heated debates, and blogging and *labs*. It's not as though the money is not there, is it now? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,17:13    Oh and Christopher, Don't you have anything at all to say about the issues raised in the original post? Do you still maintain that article at uncommon descent represents a significant shift in your favor? That it is evidence that "darwinism" is worthless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are saying the article is correct (and your spin on it is reality)then presumably you accept the papers implicit understanding of assuming an old earth full of life not mentioned in the bible. How does that help you in the larger story? Or is genesis not literal fact for you? Just wondering.... edit:typo -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,20:58    The survey I'm finding shows that 31% of science teachers feel pressured to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution. Reading that, it looks like the percentage of teachers ready to teach antievolution is smaller than I recalled. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

csadams Posts: 124 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,22:08    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2007,20:58) The survey I'm finding shows that 31% of science teachers feel pressured to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution. Reading that, it looks like the percentage of teachers ready to teach antievolution is smaller than I recalled. Perhaps 30% of our country's teachers do teach creationism, and they're the ones who who'd be unlikely to join NSTA because of its strong support of mainstream science. Wondering a bit how "pressure" was defined - anti-evo letters to the editor in the local paper, a parent suggesting that the teacher "teach the controversy," nasty emails from district patrons, a kid asking to distribute Chick tracts in the classroom, or being threatened with loss of job/privileges.  That's quite a spectrum of severity. I haven't looked around for reliable data on the number of public school teachers who actually teach ID/TCT/creationism  as science.   Off topic, sorry. -------------- Stand Up For REAL Science!

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:21    To oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, I hope to answer your questions and perhaps we ought to tackle just one at a time?  I trust this might be agreeable as there are several issues on the table at once, and it can get cluttered! Okay, on the issue of evidence, as I said before, the issue is not evidence, but on the interpretation of the evidence.  Stephan J. Gould once said a very revealing quote, "Evidence is interpreted in the light of theory." So according to him, one believes in evolution, interprets any evidence found in that light, and then proclaims to have found evidence supporting the theory. In Geotimes Don Baars, a book reviewer, said in reference to the text Mass-Extinction Debates : How Science Works In  A Crisis, "A philosophical truth in the geological sciences seems to have been validated - we find what we look for." My gatekeeper is the Bible as the only source of absolute truth.  It is true in all aspects of the big picture.  Science is merely supplying the details.   Why do I trust the Bible?  Have you read Josh Mc Dowell's books or those of Lee Strobel?  These are two gentlemen who tried to disprove the Bible and were convinced by the mountains of evidence that it had to be what it claimed to be...the very Word of God. Am I a literalist?  Certainly, when the text demands it, as in Genesis 1 - 10, which is written in the historical narrative format. (see articles on verb form in Hebrew).  the Psalms, which are obviously poetic, none the less contain truth which mirrors Genesis. All this is a moot point.  To me it matters not where things come from in order to understand how they work.  One need not visit Edison's lab or study the first light bulb to see how they work.  Even if you can explain to me logically how the first living thing knew how to divide does not mean that you are right.  I can believe that God originated the information in every cell's DNA to have the "machines" running at the time of creation.  You choose to believe that a cell put itself together.  I find no value of either belief in understanding how a cell divides today. Does this help in any way?

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,21:23    Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 30 2007,19:21) Why do I trust the Bible?  Have you read Josh Mc Dowell's books or those of Lee Strobel?  These are two gentlemen who tried to disprove the Bible and were convinced by the mountains of evidence that it had to be what it claimed to be...the very Word of God. If you trust the Bible because of Lee Strobel, I have a bridge I think you might like to buy. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:19    Dear Jim Wynne, By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:35    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19) Dear Jim Wynne, By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence. Christopher, I don't know about Jim, but I've actually PRODUCED evidence that tests predictions made by modern evolutionary theory. At first, my evidence didn't clearly fit any nested hierarchy, but as others produced evidence from other organisms, everything fit beautifully. Let me guess--when you "examine evidence," you're not anywhere close to examining the actual evidence. You just swallow what someone says about the evidence. Am I right?

fusilier Posts: 252 Joined: Feb. 2003 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:50    Concordia Lutheran HS in Ft. Wayne, IN, is a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod school.  Concordia University in Ft. Wayne is a LCMS college and seminary.  The great majority of teachers in LCMS schools are "called" (in the same fashion that pastors are called by a congregation) and are synodically trained, so it is unsurprising that the gentleman would be anti-evolution, since YEC is a tenet of that Faith. Over at http://www.geocentricity.com , Dr. Gerardus Bouwe points out the Scriptural basis for opposing the heliocentric hypothesis, explicitly citing Martin Luther.  Dr. Bouwe also points out that, up until the 1920s, LCMS seminaries taught the Scriptural truth of geocentricity.  The Pastor Emeritus of My Beloved and Darling Wife's congregation agreed that was the case,  when he and I celebrated the 30th anniversay of Tranquility Base, back in 1999. Perhaps the gentleman could let us know just why the LCMS science curricula no longer teaches the truth of a fixed earth? Or maybe he could travel down to Indianapolis and lead an inquisition at Lutheran HS, since they certainly don't. fusilier James 2:24 -------------- fusilier James 2:24

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:17    Hey all, Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/28/feedback-ashamed To JAM, What was the evidence?  And most teachers of evolution just swallow what they have been told also, so what is your point? To fusilier, Here is the LCMS position on evolution http://www.iclnet.org/pub....3.html. I have no idea at this time why this was so.  And I am curious as to why you use James 2:24.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:38    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,11:17) Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things. I find it very telling that AiG chose such a particularly poor letter to respond to.  But then we see things like this frequently from creationists.  They tend to respond primarily to more abusive criticism, and tend to ignore the more well-thought-out and informed challenges. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:39    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,10:17) Hey all, Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/28/feedback-ashamed On that link is found the following text Quote Actually, we embrace the past 6,000 years worth of scientific evidence. Which would be all of it, since the entire earth and universe came into existence only that long ago. And then there was the worldwide flood in Noah’s day, about 4,350 years ago, that laid down most of the geologic layers and fossils we find today. We don’t need to ignore the evidence, because it is all evidence that confirms what the Bible has already told us. And where do you get 1,000 years from? In fact, the belief in an old earth and evolution has only recently been widely embraced. Naturalism is the recent aberration, not the belief in a creator (even if many didn't acknowledge the true Creator). Many scientists over the last 1,000 years did indeed operate believing that the earth is young and that God exists. And many still do today. Besides, the “evidence” doesn't speak for itself—never has, never will. Christopher, I'm willing to admit that sometimes, the biological world can have the appearance of "design". Will you admit that the universe "has the appearance" of billions of years worth of age? And Christopher, if there was a worldwide flood that "that laid down most of the geologic layers and fossils we find today" could you point out the geologic layer that is "post flood" and the layer that is "pre flood"? A simple request I hope you'll agree. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:46    Great God, the weaselness burns on that site. Quote    Quite frankly I hope you are ashamed of yourselves, because I am in you. Why is it that you are ashamed of us? On what basis do you feel ashamed? In an evolutionary worldview there is no basis for “shame”—there is no objective truth to know what is right and wrong. However, in the biblical worldview there is a basis for shame found in Genesis 3. How fucking arrogant is that? To first impose a non-existent worldview on their critic, and then claim that he's betraying that worldview? And you really believe this clownery is a good argument? My gosh, they also claim that the word 'unforgivable' is a Christian word and can't be used against them. Did you say you were a science teacher? How much of this crap do you actually support? They actually use the 'The Bible is true because the Bible is true' argument further down that page. Would you let your students get away with answers like that?

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,11:38    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19) Dear Jim Wynne, By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence. I have examined Stobel's "evidence" and found it trivially unconvincing.  By Strobel's own accounts, he came to jebus because his wife had swallowed the Kool-Aid, and he needed to convince himself that jebus was real before he would drink with her.  He then allegedly embarked on a two-year examination of the "evidence" and became convinced.  It's a recurring theme amongst born-agains. In his book "The Case for Christ," do you not find it interesting that in what is supposed to be an objective treatise he cites only Christian apologists, and only addresses carefully-constructed (and easily refuted) strawmen as arguments from the other side? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,11:41    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19) Dear Jim Wynne, By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence. The Pee-Wee Herman argument--"I know you are, but what am I?" -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:01    To oldmanintheskydid'ntdoit, First I wish to thank you for the respect shown to me and not resorting to crude language in discussing this issue.  I appreciate your admiting that design appears to be true at times in nature.  I also agree that some things in the universe appear to be old looking. Investigatge white hole cosmology, a relatively new idea in the creationist camp, which can explain the apparent time paradox. As to which layers are pre-Flood and post-Flood, I would have you research http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....oic.pdf This is a very long article which may help you. Now a question for you.  As I asked before, why does when and where we came from have a bearing on understanding the present and how things work? (light bulb analogy) Thanks for your time. Chris

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:04    Dear Jim, I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence? Thanks for responding.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:19    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:01) To oldmanintheskydid'ntdoit, First I wish to thank you for the respect shown to me and not resorting to crude language in discussing this issue.  I appreciate your admiting that design appears to be true at times in nature.  I also agree that some things in the universe appear to be old looking. Investigatge white hole cosmology, a relatively new idea in the creationist camp, which can explain the apparent time paradox. As to which layers are pre-Flood and post-Flood, I would have you research http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....oic.pdf This is a very long article which may help you. Now a question for you.  As I asked before, why does when and where we came from have a bearing on understanding the present and how things work? (light bulb analogy) Thanks for your time. Chris Sorry about this but there is nothing useful to me in that article. Can you help me out by summarizing what part of it you thought was useful? This part here starts me off all confused. I don't know what he is referring to: Quote For modelling purposes, where necessary in the following discussions, the Flood is dated at about 4,500 years ago. The basis for this is as follows: (1) It is reasonable, if not appropriate, to take the genealogies of Genesis 5–11 as accurate and complete; (2) The genealogies of Genesis place 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood; and (3) a straightforward reading of genealogies in Scripture indicates the Creation of the world occurred around 6,000 years ago. This places the Flood at about 4,344 years ago; rounding to 4,500 years for simplicity. A few creationists have suggested that the Flood occurred from 7,000 (3) to over 12,000 (4) years ago. This places the date of Creation even further back in time. I do not accept these suggestions because they (1) significantly harm the biblical chronology by introducing thousands of years into the genealogies of Genesis, (2) are based on questionable dating methods or presumed geophysical process rates, and/or (3) rely on the less accurate Septuagint. Some have suggested that there was a significant time interval between the end of the Flood and the beginning of the Ice Age. This might lengthen the duration of the elevated post-Flood precipitation which includes the Ice Age. The potential for this interval, possible mechanisms, and its significance on the quantitative analysis from the various evidences will be discussed in the final section of this paper. Can you help? Thanks. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:21    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,13:19) (1) It is reasonable, if not appropriate, to take the genealogies of Genesis 5–11 as accurate and complete; You lost me at "1". -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:22    To Venus Mousetrap, I find it interesting that most of you on this site seem to read articles and then look for the one part you can argue about which then invalidates any of the other points made. The issue of worldview is critical.  You can claim it is none-existant, but that does not mean it is.  How exactly do you see things?  Do you really believe that everything you see in nature put itself together? So tell me how did cell division start?  I read a book (pro-evolution) which claimed that as cells were smashed against rocks that was how it all began. And no I don't accept that from my students.  I expect them to seek out evidence and then interpret that evidence using the appropriate world-view, just like you were taught. Sincerely, Chris

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:25    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:04) Dear Jim, I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence? Thanks for responding. No, not necessarily "all invalid," although most of it certainly is. If Strobel were interested at all in objectivity, he would have presented scholarly objections to the apologists' "evidence," and showed us how it was lacking. He didn't. He just used strawmen.  The evidence "my side" uses is generated by scientists who use an objective process to develop it.  If a scientist were to try to make the same type of lame evidentiary claims as Strobel, his work would be shredded in short order, and thrown in the dustbin. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:26    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,13:22) So tell me how did cell division start?  I read a book (pro-evolution) which claimed that as cells were smashed against rocks that was how it all began. Citation please? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:28    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:04) Dear Jim, I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence? Thanks for responding. Please also note that when someone calls your contentions into question, it's best to answer them directly, and not fall back to the prepubescent strategy of saying, "My evidence is bad? Well so is yours." -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:33    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,10:17) To JAM, What was the evidence? Sequence evidence. For the record, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so please save your misrepresentations about conformism, etc. Quote  And most teachers of evolution just swallow what they have been told also, so what is your point? My point is that you were bearing false witness when you claimed to be examining evidence. If "most teachers of evolution just swallow what they have been told," that doesn't justify your false claim of examining evidence. Have you ever examined any sequence evidence--not someone else's interpretation of it--for yourself, or are you afraid that you can't make it fit your worldview? Why do people on our side produce evidence, while people on your side run away from evidence, and project this pathological fear onto us?

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:33    Jim, I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to : 1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time. 2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making. 3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct. And as for using prepubescent logic, mea culpa.  It is what you seemd to be using to trash someone's evidence. If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:35    Whoops!  I confused JAM with Jim!  Sorry people.  As my students say, "My bad!" Chris P.S. Gotta run to let my dog out.  Catch you tomorrow.  This is fun!

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:37    A quick note to BWE, He is simply answering why he holds the Flood to be that many years ago as opposed to some other date. I hope that might help.  If not, then ask him. Chris

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:58    How exactly is the following point a piece of evidence that you can use to make any decision at all? Quote 2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making. That may or may not be the case.  The point is "how can this be a deciding factor in decision making"?  If that was the case, then the point number 2 should include something like "chronological order of the fossils shown to be incorrect BECAUSE..." I note nothing like that, what am I missing? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:02    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33) Jim, I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to : There are many more dating methods then that and they all have one thing in common that no creationist has ever reall y tried to address: Calibration Curves       Quote 1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time. Yet the Doctor himself says       Quote You qualify me as a "young-Earth creationist". This is incorrect. I am not a creationist. I do not use the Bible to construct geological models to accord, in particular, with the Deluge. Link       Quote 2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making. This is the Douglas Erwin who is the curator of Paleozoic Mollusks at the National Museum of Natural History, who is an expert on evolutionary radiations, particularly the Cambrian explosion. Recently he said:       Quote In the past few years every element of [The Darwinian Paradigm] has been attacked. Concerns about the sources of evolutionary innovation and discoveries about how DNA evolves have led some to propose that mutations, not selection, drive much of evolution, or at least the main episodes of innovation, like the origin of major animal groups, including vertebrates.     Quote 3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct. No, but a good start would be by you detailing what your problem is with "our" explanation for them. Lets not go into detail about different dating methods. I'm no expert. But I do understand that totally different methods of dating come out to the same ages. That's some coincidence. That, or the earth really is alot older then 6000 years! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:57    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33) And as for using prepubescent logic, mea culpa.  It is what you seemd to be using to trash someone's evidence. Geez, you acknowledge your juvenile argumentation style and then repeat it in the next sentence.  Is this all moving too fast for you? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Pages: (10) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard