Howard T. Map-addict wrote:
Sure they do: "Act Of G-d!"
That is what "Creationism" is all about.
Then they will tell you that "one million years ago" didn't exist.
Imaginos1892 wrote:One million years ago, humans did not exist.
None of the 'creationism' variants even attempt to explain how we can exist now, but not a million years ago.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
Not one of these replies gives any discussion about how something that only works at all if it is completely
in existence could possibly happen in incremental stages, each of which is an improvement on the earlier one. If evolution is real, it MUST have been in such small stages.
This is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."
Rhetoric is not evidence. I've read many articles and books by evolutionary writers. Have you studied any by William Dembski, Michael Behe, or any other author who discusses irreducible complication? If so, please provide a link to any one which provides solid evidence for the incremental stages needed, and not just rhetoric
Bacterial flagella are helical filaments, each with a rotary motor at its base which can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. They provide two of several kinds of bacterial motility.
The eye also requires a control system to the actuators before it can be useful and therefore be selectable. These aren't the only things that are irreducible
With our present knowledge of genetics, mutation rates, etc. it is possible to roughly calculate the odds of several independent mutations at the same time. Should we accept any theory when calculation using our current knowledge gives odds of over 10^9:1 against it
He claims a Masters degree in Biology but does not mention that it was received from The Institute For Creation Research, whose web page states:
"For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework."
Sounds to me like they have no need of research, they've already made up their minds.
Are you certain you aren't talking about evolutionists?
Some assumption is needed before you can test any idea. Research is how ideas are tested against reality. It is the validity of the test that counts, not its source, since even a jerk gets something right once in a while. If accepted authorities were always correct, knowledge could never advance
PS: I think each of us should make a point of reading the thread: "The Incompleteness of Godwin's Law" every once in a while just to help us recognize the difference between gratuitous and pertinent