PS, to my above post. I see I made an error --> I meant 1492 ;-)



Shifting the burden of proof onto those that question or oppose your theories, when we are not teaching them as fact in the classroom is revealing. I have people far more intelligent and learned than I am on my side of the fence who are much more capable of understanding and exposing than I could ever be. I've not yet seen any photographic or realistic examples of evidence for evolution. Just words and animation. So until that day, I am happy with the examples of life and design that I see around me and what history has always shown to us. The land before time? That's another story and one that evolutionists seem more than happy to tell.



I don't know Linear, perhaps you should tell me? You guys have already decided that by putting across assumptions as fact. I don't find assumptions enough to be called science. I think pre-conceived ideas should be kept out of it if one is going to be scientific and honest about it and you do find those people. I've watched "Icons of Evolution" today on video and found it excellent. I'd recommend it. It is not staunchly evolution or creation. In fact it kind of leaves it up to the viewer, they give both sides and tell you what they have been able to test and what either side thinks and what they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. As there most definitely is bias that comes into it. That is clear.



If it doesn't exclude God, then how can you say it doesn't give Him credit for anything? Isn't this a contradiction? How do you or them know this by the way? Since you're unable to test origins and exactly what took place, when it took place, how it took place. I fail to see how any of you can claim as such.



You clearly didn't read my post. You're asking me to give you every answer regarding God and sickness. If the bible contained everything, we'd never finish reading it. I read the bible and can only give things to you from my understanding of it (which is probably rather limited, since I am far from a scholar). I believe that many things that we suffer, were brought on after original sin. I know that God is in control, but I also know that He allows things to happen too. How involved He is in every microbe? That's something I don't have understanding about. Since I am neither divine, or have been divinely inspired to give you a theosis on that, I prefer to say to you that this is just what I "think", but I would not give a lecture on it ;-) Since I myself wish to understand Him more.



I have been through this with Linda. I do not believe in dinosaur to bird evolution. Just as much as I do not believe in the horse evolution theory. Just as much as I do not believe in ape like creatures becoming man. You want me to give a description of something missing and this makes no sense. This to me is like saying "Could you provide me of a description of what the missing link between a bat and a horse would look like"?

You know why I say that? I'll give you an example: Taken from Creation magazine - www.CreationOnTheWeb.com Vol. 30 No.2 Page 40.

SADDLE UP THE HORSE, IT'S OFF TO THE BAT CAVE

In the prestigeous Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, scientists reported their study of genetic re-arrangements associated with retro-posons, which are strands of DNA that copy themselves into RNA and then copy themselves back into DNA at different sites on a chromosome. In the evolutionary paradigm, closely related species should share more of these rearrangements than more distant relatives.

Until this study, scientists considered bats and horses to be very distant cousins. They were shocked to discover that bats and horses share a high degree of DNA similarity ;-) "I think this will be a surprise for many scientists." stated Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of technology in Japan. "no one expected this".

Why such a surprise?

Evolutionary scientists establish relationships between living organisms based on morphological (form, structure) and DNA similarity. Creatures that are anatomically similar are believed to be so because they possess a close evolutionary relationship - they are supposed to have inherited these characteristics from a fairly 'close' common ancestor. The same is true of creatures that are genetically very similar. So if two creatures are supposed to be evolutionarily close by one of these criterea, they should be close by the other also - provided, that is, that the whole idea of common descent is valid.

Applying this logic, researchers predicted that cows and horses would be much more closely related than bats and horses. Cows are anatomically, physiologically, functionally, and behaviourally rather similar to horses. on the other hand, even a child could identify the huge differences between bats and horses. Compared to horses and cows, a bat is very different in its skeletal anatomy, mode of locomotion (flying), navigation (echolocation), soft tissue arrangements, diet, and lifestyle.

Bats and horses should thus have been very different in their DNA. Because of their obvious structural and functional differences. This shocking results revealed an astounding discrepancy between morphological and genetic data.

More problems

The genetic data seems to also contradict the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. Horses supposedly evolved from a small quadruped beginning 35-55 millions years ago on the evolutionary time-line, taking their modern form only in the last 1.5 millions years. Cows supposedly began their evolutionary process about 23 million years ago. On the other hand, fully formed, modern-looking bat fossils appear around 60 millions years ago (without any intermediates linking them to their supposed land-bound ancestors).

Separated by such an immense supposed time gap, horse and bat DNA should have been much more different by now. Cows and horses, supposedly having evolved in overlapping time frames, should share much more similarity in thei respective genomes.

Implications

when it comes to bats and horses, the facts just don't add up for evolution. Common descent is based on a whole set of assumptions, extrapolations, and inferences. However, in this case, the hard scientific data reveal that common descent is completely invalid.

As Okad said, in regards to the surprising discovery, '......We need to look at fossils from a new point of view...' He's exactly right. Perhaps it is time to throw away the tired, old evolutionary glasses and replace them with a fresh pair of biblical lenses.

Ryan Jaroncyk

Linear, I recall you mentioning something about the bible stating the earth is flat? Could you please provide me with chapter and verse? I have read through the bible a few times and never come across such a statement, yet I've heard evolutionists state this before and when asked, I've yet to see anybody give chapter and verse. My Father by the way trained to be a priest in the seminary and required much reading of the bible as you can imagine, he too has never heard the like. I do know there is a reference to the stars and the earth in the bible and even when the "advanced" wise men of the day, actually thought they could count them - the bible had long since proven that they were inumerable (like sands on the shore). Unfortunately in order to prove this, I too need to find chapter and verse to back that up.