Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 208: Line 208:  
:Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long.  About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
 
:Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long.  About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
 
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about. Now it seems that the only part of evolution that creationists object to is the gene mutations. Why is that when they have already taken the step of admitting natural selection? There is evidence of gene mutations that occur, such as bacteria and viruses mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics or other medicines. And the creationist explanation did nothing for me. How is it possible that they already had the genetic information for the resistance of antibiotics in them, not to mention all the other drugs and medicines that some strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to? What about leopards and tigers, they had a common ancestor and they share similar information yet how did they become so different when some of them live in the same environment? According to the creationist theory, the common ancestor of snow leopards and siberian tigers should have lost the same types of genetic information when they 'migrated' from Ararat mountain to Russia and Mongolia, yet the two species have split to the extent that they can no longer mate. Surely only the mutations of genes can account for this.
 +
 +
::One thing i failed to understand was how the animals supposedly spread from Mount Ararat to all corners of the globe. Animals such as the kangaroo, and the koala, how did they get across asia and Indoniesia to end up here, without settling in other parts of the world? Why did most of the animals not stay around Israel? Why don't the native peoples of places such as Australia, North and South America and Asia have flood stories and tales of how they descended from Noah? How can you explain the diversity of species in different areas when it is obvious that some of them could not have crossed an ocean to get there. And the fact that the whole species (or its ancestor) must have crossed the oceans, leaving none of them behind? Birds is understandable but not sloths, grizzly bears, koalaa and buffalo not to mention thousands of others. There are plenty of holes in the story that have not yet been explained.
 +
 +
::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007
100

edits

Navigation menu