Quote
CTD wrote:

Quote
No tree = no non-whale ancestor for the whale. Hippos didn't become whippos didn't become whales. Whales have always been whales, just as bats have always been bats, crocodiles have always been crocodiles, pterosaurs have always been pterosaurs, and every other kind of lifeform has always been what it's been.

What about a Neanderthal? Have they always been a Neanderthal? Oh wait, sorry -- I forgot. Cavemen never really existed. It's all one big conspiracy by the scientists to .. uhm .. do something. And stuff.
It's like asking if astronauts have always been astronauts. Men have always been men. Where & how they live, that's another subject.

There is a thread on the known conspiracy of the X Club, and the actions of their affiliates. If & how they reacted to the discovery of Neanderthals, that might be a good place to discuss it.

Quote
Like LinearAq, I too am patiently waiting on evidence for 7-day creation. I'll be happy to give the evidence a read just as soon as you're willing to provide us with it. It would actually be quite neat to read, and I'm not being sarcastic in any way.

Let's just set the record straight, shall we? Here's the first post in the thread
Quote
Because I would like to see both sides of the creationist-evolutionist debate have their fair share of presentation, I have made this thread for CREATIONISTS to post their side of the story. I kindly ask that the evolutionists of the forum refrain from posting evolution evidence, facts, or research, as that is not the purpose of this particular thread. This thread is for creationist evidence only.

To open this presentation I would like to post a quote from LinearAq, asking a creationist to answer the following:

LinearAq wrote:

Quote
More importantly, how do these "new" revelations provide support for your God-did-it-in-7-days theory, or the God-designed-it theory? I read the websites and the research they quoted, yet found no supportive evidence for 7-day-creation 6000 years ago. In fact there was no evidence at all that support the existence of God at work in forming life.

Now, this particular question was posed to the poster CTD, whom, if we're lucky, (s)he will have the time available to respond -- as well as other creationist posters -- and thus contribute to the mountainous evidence supporting creation. After answering the above questions with clear and testable evidence, we can then expand on the presentation by adding additional creationist research, but it would be fair to start by answering the above questions before moving forward.

I kindly ask that the evolutionists of this forum not retort with snide remarks or tell me to simply go do my homework, or that they're an expert in the field of evolution and I should trust that they know what they're talking about and to leave it at that. Please, simply allow the creationist side of the debate their chance to speak and present evidence supporting their claims. When the creationist side of the argument has offered its evidence of creationism and not mere attempts at disproving evolution without any proof to back up its own argument alone, I promise you the presentation will be a compelling one for all readers here. You will be wowed when you see the creationist evidence doesn't even need to waste time talking about evolution but instead goes straight to the point by presenting its numerous tried and tested theories and facts.
You're asking me to answer LinearAQ's question, which was presented in another thread under circumstances which would distract the discussion.

The question you plucked from the other thread is poorly put together, since nobody's claimed the new DNA homological evidence is evidence of a 7-day creation. However, as I just got done explaining, some of this DNA evidence does indeed support the historical record.

I never maintained that this evidence would convince those who don't want to be convinced. But I have thoroughly answered the question, and I don't care to repeat myself.

Now your question in the more recent post and LinearAQ's question are phrased differently. You do not specify that the evidence must be from recent DNA research. Have you been following the "History Rules!" thread? If so, you may understand that historical evidence does exist. If you think such evidence should be dismissed, I'd like to know on what grounds one can do so (in the appropriate thread).

Meanwhile, I do have a brief summary of evidence to submit.
Quote
Radioactive Halos Disprove Molten Earth Theory (1986). Robert V. Gentry carried on research into radiohalos in granite for years, but was discharged from Oak Ridge Research Laboratory in 1982 because he testified in defense of Arkansas State at the above-mentioned trial. He then put his years of research findings and professional articles into a book (Creation�s Tiny Mystery, 1986). In brief, billions upon billions of polonium- 218 radiohalos are in granite; yet each halo was formed in less than 3 minutes. There is no way the halos could get in there after the granite was formed; yet the granite had to be solid when the halos formed. This means the granite was created solid in less than three minutes! Since granite is the basement rock under every continent, it would be impossible for the earth to once have been a molten mass as conjectured by the evolutionists. Interestingly enough, granite can be melted; but it will reform into rhyolite, never into granite. See chapter 3, Origin of the Earth, for a brief summary of data on this. Go to our website for a complete study on the subject.
Along with a more detaile & organized look at radiohalos. The radiohalo phenomenon indicates that granite was created in a very, very brief timespan which is incompatible with any naturalistic explanation. Nobody has even come up with a way to replicate the critical variety of radiohalos in a lab.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson