Where are the young earthers?

quote:

---

It's tempting for creationists to believe that it's all a matter of perspective, but this view is untenable when all the data are taken into consideration.

---

And it goes past perspective as well. Using the theory of evolution one is able to PREDICT certain facts, such as genetic relationships among closely and distantly related organisms. Pseudogenes, ERV's, and atavisms with respect to common ancestory are predictions that must bear out, otherwise the theory may need to be revised.What are the predictions of special creation theory? At first we hear how new morphological characteristics are impossible to evolve, and then those same changes occur within 1000 years after the Ark lands in order to explain the diversity within a "kind". We also hear about "common design/common designer", but this also fails in the light of convergent evolution, where the same solution is reached by separate paths or mechanisms. Therefore, commonality between species is only related to common ancestory, not common functionality. The sad part is, if creationist theories were all grouped together and checked for consistency with data (not interpretations) it would utterly fail. Not because God doesn't exist, but because the book that Man wrote about him is inaccurate when read literally. The predictions within special creation theories just doesn't pan out, unless, of course, the data is selectively chosen.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-06-2004]

But they cant "predict" as much as I might be able to.

See this article for an explanation of how a creationist might explain this meander.
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/flood-p3.html
This article puts forth the notion that these meanders are actually a proof more of a flood than of a slow erosion over time. Slow erosion would actually cause the meanders to gradually disappear. Has this notion been refuted? I honestly don't know. I'd be more than happy to take a look at whatever articles you can find that would refute this. Do evolutionists believe that mutations are in no way accounted for by creationists? I believe that mutations, whether beneficial or detrimental, are a direct result of sin, so the fact that mutations have accumulated is also a prediction of creation, not just evolution. But perhaps, I'm missing the point of that part of Loudmouth's post.

quote:

---

Do evolutionists believe that mutations are in no way accounted for by creationists? I believe that mutations, whether beneficial or detrimental, are a direct result of sin, so the fact that mutations have accumulated is also a prediction of creation, not just evolution. But perhaps, I'm missing the point of that part of Loudmouth's post.

---

If creationists believe the same about mutations as evolutionists, then they can't deny common ancestory between apes and man. A mutation in the vitamin C synthase gene is shared by humans and apes. Not only is the same gene broken, but by the same exact mutation in the same exact spot. The chances of this happening in separate mutational events, by chance, are astronomical. However, if humans and apes share a common ancestor, then the mutation only had to happen once. Science prefers the most likely answer, which is the mutation happened once and was passed down through heredity to subsequent generations. These subsequent generations then went through speciation events but did not lose the broken gene. This type of genetic relationship (common pseudogenes/broken genes between species sharing a common ancestor) is predicted by the theory of evolution. It was not predicted by the theory of special creation. This is not an interpretation, but rather a prediction that came true. This is the power of the theory of evolution, its ability to be tested, and the reliable way in which the theory passes those tests.

....when I see statements like I tend to get pissed off! REALLY pissed off!!!Tell that to the parents of a child with cystic fibrosis or Pombe's Disease. Next you'll be trying to tell me that people born with congenital deformities somehow deserved their deformity!!! Where the hell is the love in your brand of Christianity, where is the understanding, where is the charity? Have you even heard of the parable of the Good Samaritan? If you have it's obvious that an understanding of it went right over your head and, plop, onto the wall! Where is the God, who so loved the world that He gave his only Son? And you expect me to believe that God is petty enough to CONTINUE to punish us for some "Original Sin"? He gives His only Son so that sin can be forgiven, then continues to punish us for the sins of the fathers? Bit of a waste of a Son then, innit? Strewth!!!!!!!!!!

Funkman,All your link says is this:

quote:

---

Geologists have been forced to admit to catastrophic formation of some of the great landscape scars that occur on every continent. The great "Dry Falls" of the Columbia River have only recently been accepted as being of catastrophic origin, as have the Goosenecks of the Colorado River.

---

Accepted by whom? On what grounds?

There are a number of "catastrophic" formed features of the earth. This particulare on is accepted as being formed by a glacial melt lake release, IIRC.But of course, so what? This is just an example of a confusion about what "uniformitarianism" actually means.The point for funkman isn't that some features are formed quickly but that many can not have been formed quickly. Period.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-06-2004]

COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT SIN HAS EVER BEEN COMMITTED BY A BACTERIUM OR A VIRUS OR A MOUSE OR A POTATO OR ANY OTHER LIVING THING, BAR HUMANS? Mutations occur in ALL forms of life. It's a bit mean of your God punishing an Escherichia coli for man's sins, is it not? Have you had a logic bypass?To Admin - yes, I know I'm yelling, but I've had a rotten day, I was up most of the night with my toddler because his CLUBFEET were giving him gyp (condition does have a genetic component, probably polygenic). Please excuse the rantings of a tired, emotional and downright FURIOUS mother!!!!!

Loudmouth, The bible does say he is the potter and we are the clay, and are not all creatures made from the dust of the earth, cladistic similarities only supports a common designer, etc...P.S. The bible even catagorized like similarities between the kinds, flying insects, bats, and birds are all called flying fowl, Genesis talks about the fowl flying in the fimament between the waters, the book of Leviticus even mentions the same creatures today that existed when Moses wrote this book, if creatures were evolving, how come these same creatures exist today that existed then, its this lack of transitional creatures between the different kinds, the evidence in the natural supports a lack of transitional fossils, because of a lack of fossils its becomes obvious genetic cladistic similarities only supports a common creator, no credible amounts of transitional fossil information to bridge the different winged creatures evolved from one common ancestor, however, its quite easy to bridge cladistic similarites, in that God make a bird that could fly, reptiles that could fly, birds that could fly, and insects that could fly, all different kinds of creatures, with different chromosome numbers, is too supportive of a common creator, showing cladistic similarities only supports a common creator, the winged design is too different for these creatures to have evolved one from the other, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-06-2004]

sigh So you just said that the first form of christianity was catholic, from which all other forms derived ... and this is different from what I said how? But still a rule of behavior. Quibble if you want it is of little import to me, as I am satisfied that the pope is a Christian by the definitions of common usage. As I said before if you want to add qualifiers (born-again, etc) at the front that is fine.You are also incorrect about "All formalized relgions" as only a few of them include the {heaven \ hell} dichotomy in their belief structures that in any way approaches the christian versions. Another minor quibble.Yes that article shows that creationists like ham will use concocted strawman scenarios (the "student" and the "man" at the end are a real comedy duo, a real chuckle to think anyone buys those silly arguments) and a lot of hype with no substance (where are those science presuppositions?) while blatantly admitting to allowing presuppositions to control his interpretations. Is, perhaps, because by ignoring the hardcore scientific topics as much as possible one can maintain a warm fuzzy feeling about faith and inerrancy. Been to the Age Dating Correlations thread yet?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Haven't been at all on top of things lately, but it seems this one needs to either get back home, or be closed.How many other topics are also currently way off?Adminnemooseus

That doesn't make any sense.Dean Kamen is the designer of both an advanced kidney dialysis machine and the Segway electric scooter. Do you see any similarity between these objects? I sure as hell don't.Common designers don't share designs among totally different inventions. They design something from scratch each time, especially if it's a totally new application.I't wouldn't surprise me to learn that creationists aren't usually designers.

I am having trouble with this interpretation. First off, a rounding would go to 31 and not 30 as there is no reason to impose a decimal count rounding ... if it said something like a "decacubit" across and 3 around I might be so convinced. What measure are we using for the cubit, 20"? and a span is 9"? If the OD is 10 cubits it is 200" across and the ID is 200-2x9 = 182" ... you need to take the span off each end of the OD ... 30 cubits is 600" and inside circumference is 182pi = 571" while the outside circumference is 200pi = 628" ... either way you are out over 1 cubit in the measurement. The only interpretation is that the 3:1 ratio is implied, whether they are rough measures or one inside and one outside (what nonsense ...?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

AbbyLeever, I'm kinda going with the sacred cubit = 25 inches, if the outside diameter is 10 cubits, and the inside diameter is 9.55 cubits calculated from the inside circumference, thats a difference of .45 cubits, multiply .45 times 25 inches = 11.25 inches divided by 2 = 5.625 inches = one handswidth, however, didn't find a measurement for a handswidth by doing a google search, just assuming its going to be around 5.625 inches for the thickness of the vessel, etc...

Way too far off topic guys. Waay too far!