nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 270:
Line 270: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 10:18, May 23, 2007
, 10:18, May 23, 2007→Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction: Last? reply
::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:39, 23 May 2007
::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:39, 23 May 2007
:::"''...I feel that there are some major differences of opinion...''". You reckon? I'm glad you told me, because I wouldn't have guessed! :-)
:::"''...however some [mutations] are productive and that is when the species advances.''". Some mutations do confer a benefit on the creature, but even these are not increases in genetic information, but losses. For examples, beetles on a windy island that have a mutation that causes their wings to not develop have an advantage in that they don't get blown off the island into the sea. But even though this is an advantage, and could result in them being classified as a different species, it still doesn't explain where the genetic information for wings (etc.) came from in the first place. In other words, the genetic change is going in the wrong direction for goo-to-you evolution.
:::"''Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism.''". Which explains nothing about evolution. That's equivalent to saying that bacteria are still bacteria because they haven't evolved into something else. Wow! Isn't that precisely what I was saying?
:::"''I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve...''". Yes, which is why if you were going to see something evolving into something else, you would expect to see it in something like bacteria. '''But you don't'''!
:::"''...look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that''". Of course not, because (a) I believe that cro-magnon men were fully human, and (b) the timescale is based on assumptions that I disagree with.
:::"''Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate ...''". Despite the fact that the evidence for such has been shown so many times to be unreliable.
:::"''...while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old ...''". I have it from a ''very'' reliable source, and the counter-evidence is demonstrably unreliable.
:::"''...and therefore science must be wrong''". No, it's not science that is wrong, but the materialistic assumptions of evolutionists.
:::"''I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.''". The dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions that, as I have mentioned, have been shown to be unreliable.
:::"''...I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old''". I'm not saying that they were ''not'' predatory, just questioning whether or not we can say for sure that they ''were''. Neither am I saying that they ''are'' pre-flood, just wondering if we ''know'' that they weren't.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)