OK Russ, so you are saying that people in Noah's time became evil of their own free will, and that God does not interfere with free will. This is one possible interpretation and I don't see how it's more or less valid than others I've heard, so fair enough. My personal point of view is that I don't believe anyone is 100% evil and I'd have a hard time believing that all but 8 of the people on earth were so evil that they deserved to die. But we're purely in the realm of speculation here and there's no science involved. Your concept of the transcendent, and mine, are very different from each other so please don't try to explain God to me, it's quite honestly a waste of your time.
In reference to "hyper": Note that preprogrammed adaptation occurs more quickly than evolution would like to believe. Think in terms of Thoroughbred breeding.
There's a problem here though. You have told me that "kinds" refers, in your opinion, to a more general classification than what we define as species. This necessitates extremely rapid evolution after the flood. Such rapid evolution has not been observed in the evidence from the geologic column, nor has it been revealed through phylogenetics. Breeding thoroughbreds amounts to changes within species only. How do you get thousands of completely new species of animals in just a few thousand years?
You have to remember that considerable periods of time have elapsed since the flood, and this time provides plenty of time for the built-in (created) adaptive abilities of these animals to reemerge.
With this in mind, you can see that pandas may not have been aboard.
By "considerable periods," would you accept 18-25 million years ago? That is when molecular studies estimate that giant pandas diverged from the bear line, as you can read here
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/2695/genetics.htmlWhat we do find is an abrupt appearance, which diametrically opposes the myth of evolution.
Are you again saying that there are no transitional forms? I gave a series of transitional forms for the whale. Ambulocetus is a good example of a transitional form.
We've talked about Behe's idea of irreducible complexity. I've given you a model of how a mousetrap can be reduced in its parts and still work, though Behe claimed that this is impossible. I've also given you a series of examples of the most simple to the most complex eye and explained how evolution could have gone through these steps; organisms which possess each of these kinds of eye can still be found today. Every example that creationists have given of a supposedly irreducibly complex system has been refuted. Behe does not have a leg to stand on. The atom used to be considered irreducibly complex. There was a time when people didn't even know that atoms exist. Science marches on and we learn more all the time. If we decide to stop at some point, say "this is irreducibly complex, God did it," and leave it at that, how are people going to learn anything?
We've already dealt with this. I've explained both why I don't believe in a young Earth (although I admit that there are some very compelling scientific arguments supporting it) and why I believe the Bible does not make this claim
Actually you have not said how old you think the earth is. Why not just tell me? Give me a number? Then everyone here will better understand your position.
What are the scientific arguments for a young earth that you find compelling?
About a genetic bottleneck. I posted an explanation of this but neither you nor SoSick appear to have read it. It's got nothing to do with fossils. And species or "kinds," it doesn't matter, because you are analysing genes and using them to look back in time. You can see from this process when bottlenecks occurred that caused the loss of genetic diversity. Even if all living animals evolved from a few "kinds," that would have been a bottleneck that is reflected in the genes of everything alive today. It isn't there.
What is the "lie" about the fossil record and can you give evidence of it?
And again, an assertion that the three methods of absolute dating of rocks is erroneous. Unless you give evidence of this and explain how it is erroneous, what you are saying amounts to no more than "it's all lies." I'm not sure why you think I'm going to accept this as an explanation for the specific things I've been asking you and everyone else here.
Why do we keep coming back to this?
Because no one has given a satisfactory answer.
Yet again, you assert that the sorting of fossils is a lie. Evidence please? And don't just tell me to go look at Hovind's website or post another video link that I will not watch. Give me a specific bit of information I can check out for myself, as I have been doing here to support my own claims.
Can you give me a model, for instance, that explains how a) there is enough fresh water underground to cover the earth in water a few miles deep, and b) what the geological process was that caused it to come out? If it broke forth in torrents then there are some scientific problems with this, but I'm still not sure how anyone here would explain what happened.
About classifying homo erectus, neanderthal, etc. I don't expect you to be aware that an analysis of human genes gives approximate dates for when we and our ancestors branched off from various species, because you did not read my post about genetic bottlenecks. But this is the data we have. Fossils are not needed here but they do fit the dates. You do a disservice to scientists by accusing them of making huge assumptions about a few teeth or parts of a skull. They have other fossils to refer to as well and they can fit puzzle pieces together. There is also the date of the rocks in which the fossils are found. If you want to refute any of this then please cite specific examples. The vagueness of the assertions in this post is tedious.
Derogatory remarks about you? Only that a couple of things have happened that I do perceive as unfair. One of my posts appears to have been deleted by you without warning or explanation, and the thread locked. I refer to the "Evolution of Man Disproved in 50 . . ." thread. Second, SoSick has been allowed to post things like "you are dumb" and "you have been on psych meds, you need counselling," to me -- in other words, she can insult me to her heart's content -- without fear of a warning. So if I decided to get into a slagging-off match with her and return tit for tat that would be OK with you would it? I honestly think some basic rules of conduct are needed particularly on a forum like this, where tempers can sometimes get frayed.
If you no longer want to pay for this area of the forum and would rather that "evolutionists" were not posting their views, that is completely your call. You can make this a creationists' corner if you want. I'm just here because there appears to be no one else around who wants to challenge creationist claims in any substantial way and at the moment I am free to do so.
