lpetrich

Ed's mentioned something about the "creator" sending a "message". This suggests that he has read Walter ReMine.

And after comparing the contributions of David Thomas and Walter ReMine in <a href="http://www.nmsr.org/tccsadbt.htm" target="_blank">this debate</a>, it's clear who is the more rational one. David Thomas's comments are reasonable and well-argued, while Walter ReMine's are incoherent and reminiscient of the excrement of the male bovine.

Ed

But How?

Ed

All the ones that are a different genus are probably different kinds and the reasons why are the same reasons that make them a different genus.

lpetrich

I wonder if our favorite wildlife biologist can describe the connection -- how does one decide which species belong in the same genus, and why are they supposed to be different "created kinds". As opposed to Linnaean families being the "created kinds".

Ed

Not necessarily. There could have been large amounts of junk DNA that later became active. And the old DNA could have been snipped out by some presently unknown process.

Quote:

Ed: The bible doesnt say it is incomplete but it does teach that nature is a supplement and complementary to it. Read the Psalms and Romans 1 among others.

lp: Too vague. All the Psalms say is "How marvelous! Goddidit!"[/quote]

Hardly, "the heavens declare the glory of God". Also the book of Job talks about how inscrutable God has made nature.

Quote:

Ed: Improving our learning and reasoning skills are part of his plan. He teaches thru Paul that we should test every doctrine to see if it lines up with who he is and his Word and our experiences.

lp: Including having an open mind to the possibility of Biblical errancy?[/quote]

For a non-christian considering christianity, of course. You should put the bible to the test. But someone who has experienced a relationship with God there is no desire to have such a view because we know that that God does not lie. But of course most christians have some doubts at some points in their lives and they should always investigate such doubts.

Quote:

lp: And if Ed disclaims expertise in geology, then he ought not to comment on it. Ed: When I first started posting on this board I never planned to that is why I started out on the EOG thread, but eventually I got lured into it. But given that this board is for talking about one's beliefs then I thought why should I not comment on something I believe.

lp: But you were the one who insisted on making an issue out of Flood Geology, O Ed.[/quote]

When and where? I admit I discussed it, but I do not consider it a fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is whether the Christian God exists. If he exists then such things can be worked out later on.

Quote:

(fossil graveyards, the Missoula and Altai Pleistocene superfloods...) Ed: But these sites could also be remnants of a global flood. lp: Except that they clearly are not. Most of the Earth was unaffected by these big floods, which would happen repeatedly. Ed: How do you know they are not? Remnants of a global flood could very well look like the main effects of a local flood.

lp: Floral and faunal continuity, as is evident in the fossil record. [/QUOTE]

Given that the flood only lasted a year any break would hardly be noticed in 2 million years of strata.

Ed

No, as I stated the terms "the father of" in hebrew can also mean "the ancestor of". So the bible is indefinite about the date of the flood.

Quote:

lp: Except that they clearly are not. Most of the Earth was unaffected by these big floods, which would happen repeatedly.

Quote:

Ed: How do you know they are not? Remnants of a global flood could very well look like the main effects of a local flood.

ps: Its very simple. The deposits you and LP are discussing (e.g. Altai and Missoula Pleistocene flood deposits) are not remnants of Noah's flood because 1) they are all much too old, and 2) the sedimentary record shows that these outburst floods occurred dozens of times during deglacial episodes over the past 1.5 million years or so(see refs below). Plus, these were local floods. You might not like this. But thats how it is. The sedimentary evidence itself proves the limited scope of those floods.

Bjornstad et al., 2001. Long History of Pre-Wisconsin, Ice Age Cataclysmic Floods: Evidence from Southeastern Washington State. Journal of Geology 109, pp. 695-713.

Zuffa et al., 2000. Turbidite Megabeds in an Oceanic Rift Valley Recording Jökulhlaups of Late Pleistocene Glacial Lakes of the Western United States. Journal of Geology 10, pp. 253-274


Patrick

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p> [/QUOTE]

What sedimentary evidence proves the limited scope of those floods? Actually the dating of these sediments fit perfectly with the biblical account of a flood shortly after man appeared on the earth.

lpetrich

How ingenious. What's the DIRECT evidence for the occurrence of this remarkable genetic recombination?

Well-summarized by my comment.

I have, and I find it errant. I suggest that you read some articles on Biblical errancy some time; this site has some.

Be careful; it could be some mischievous devil posing as the Xian god.

Sedimentary evidence away from the paths of these floods.

Ed

I will have to check. I believe it is some type of bee eater.

Quote:

Ed: ... And one sign of a conscience is a system of justice, no animal society has such a thing. ... lp: I wonder what would qualify as "justice" here. Ed: Punishing a fellow member of your species for killing or injuring another member of your species or some similar scenario. No animal does this.

lp: Chimps have been known to stop other chimps from quarreling with each other, as described by Franz de Waal's work.[/quote]

That is not any form of meteing out justice, that is just an instinctive group calming instinct in order not to attract the attention of predators.

Quote:

Ed: Sorry, in my job I don't deal with taxonomy, it has been awhile since I used the terms.

lp: Which makes one wonder what kind of "wildlife biologist" Ed is.[/quote]

An environmental wildlife biologist. I study the impacts of transportation projects on wildlife, I dont classify them.

Quote:

Ed: Yes and molecular biology has also shown that the probability of Darwinian mechanisms being able to generate macroevolution as miniscule.

lp: HOW??? I'd like to be pointed to some big article in some peer-reviewed journal that shows that. Because I've yet to see any such thing in the molecular-evolution literature.[/quote]

F. Dretske, "Knowledge and the Flow of Information.

Quote:

Ed: ... as shown in the website about the Kow Swamp fossils homo erectus was plainly human. lp: In what way? Ed: It shows that Australian aborigines inerbred with and are direct descendents of these "homo erectus" people.

Again, I wonder what kind of "wildlife biologist" Ed is.

Interbreeding != same species, as shown by

Horses and donkeys
Lions and tigers
Dolphins and false killer whales[/quote]

That, and in conjunction with the other factors I stated in earlier posts.

Quote:

lp: Homo erectus is never associated with cave paintings. Homo sapiens (sapiens) is. This can easily be worked out from how there are no known cave paintings before the emergence of Homo sapiens (sapiens). Ed: Maybe they painted on a different medium that is more fragile such as on trees.

And NEVER on the walls of any cave. How convenient.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p> [/QUOTE]

They may have been afraid of caves, given that large bears often live in them. Then later on when better weapons were developed they ventured into them.

lpetrich

Ed on what kind of wildlife biologist he is:
An environmental wildlife biologist. I study the impacts of transportation projects on wildlife, I dont classify them.

Ed, thanx for coming out and describing your field of expertise.

Ed earlier:
Yes and molecular biology has also shown that the probability of Darwinian mechanisms being able to generate macroevolution as miniscule.

lp earlier:
HOW???

Ed:
F. Dretske, "Knowledge and the Flow of Information.

I've tracked down that book, and I don't see where it discusses the question of the possibility of macroevolution.

And what counts as macroevolution, anyway?

Duvenoy

No, not a bee-eater.

Crows have often been observed using tools (put nothing past a crow), but the best example is the Woodpecker Finch of the Galapagos Islands. Darwin strikes again!

Here’s a neat article on the subject

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/birdsi...ool_Using.html

doov