Baidarka

What does creationism explain?
What does it predict?
What does creationism have to say about the ostrich (why did God bother to give it wings?)?
What about blind cave fish with residual eyes. Why did God start to give it eyes that it didn't need?
Why do certain aquatic salamanders who never leave the water and never use their feet have useless feet anyway ?
Why did God make horrible things like ticks, leaches, salmonella, and the AIDS virus?
Why did God do such a bad job designing our lower backs? So many people visiting Chiropractors.
Why do tasty ripe fruit signal us by changing color when they are ready to eat? How about Marijuana when the seeds are ready to be planted it sends out a heady inebriating fragrance to attract flocks of birds which devour the buds and then fly away stoned (there should be a law) .The seeds then are passed whole from the birds and are widely dispersed.
Lets suppose we wanted to turn nice house cats into big viscous lion like killers. We could do it and it would only take a couple hundred years of an intensive breeding program. Imagine what we could do in 1000 years or 1,000,000 years we could turn the house cat into something no one could recognize by breeding alone.
Look at what we have done with corn.
Look at how the Chinese created the
Gold fish from the Carp
while the Japanese created the koi.
Check out Lake Tanganyika in Africa.
A lake on top of a volcano. Somehow
a few Ciclid fish were introduced to this lake. Over the course of many thousand years this single Ciclid species diversified into many different but closely related species to fill every ecological niche in the Lake.
Look at the marsupials of Australia.
How in isolation one species diversified into many. Kangaroo, wombat, koala all close relatives.
Darwins theory was mainly based on the study of living Animals. The fossil evidence has just been used as one type of conformation.

Scientists who believed in evolution warned us that the over use of antibiotics would result in bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
Propose an experiment to verify some aspect of Creationism.
Karl Marx did a great job telling us what is wrong with capitalism he just wasn't so good at creating something better.

Look up other creation Myths <a href="http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/7979/indian/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/7979/indian/</a> and then tell me why you think that Genesis is historical while an Algonquin
creation story is a Myth.
What preposterous stroke of luck allowed you to be born into the truth while the majority of the world's people were born to be damned by your demi-urge for their ignorance of your version of the truth.

Someone7

yoo evolusttionististics are gonna burn in hellfire!

gallo

Nah! Just because both of my brothers have had surgery for ruptured disks (one had surgery twice in the lower back, one had surgery in the back and in the neck), and my wife had surgery for a ruptured disk, and I have a herniated disk (non-surgical) it is NOT a reason to deny perfect design. Just consider Noah. Think about the backbreaking work that he did in building the ark and tending all of those animals. Since then, that perfect design has decayed (according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

Where is your faith, man?

madmike

I will attempt to answer some of your questions, some I care not to argue about because we will get no where.

This animal has lost a function not useful to its existence. This is what we would expect to see in small isolated systems. The fish still go through the process of natural selection. Some have defective eyesight, this does not effect them at all because there is no light. This is de-evolution, not evolution. The fish is no better or worse off without their eyes.

The animals you list are necessary in certain ecological niche's. As far as bacteria and Viruses: Creationist standpoint- god released death into the world, disease and famine, because of our sin.

See above. Lower back problems have many causes, obesity, genetics, diseases. go to a gym and strenghten your muscles, with a little excerise you'll be fine. Get out of that chair for once.

I bet you in a million years it would still be recognizable as a cat of some sort. the problem lies in that most animals that are bred to this day are genetically inferior to the original animal. We see this in dogs with poor vision, heart problems, many genetic flaws. So in a millions years you have a cat who looks pretty but dies in about a year because of all of the "new" defects it aquired while being bred.

Marspials are found in most parts of the world and fossils of many kangaroo like animals have been found here in the states.

Fossils have shown similarity between animals but in no way shown how one thing changes into another. There is no known mechinism for darwinian evolution. With the great stride in microbiology we have found no convincing evidence in how certain structures came to be. Do some research on one structure such as a flagellum. Seems simple enough, but the whole mechinism is irreducibly complex, it cannot function without all its parts, and it does have many. Try to find one published article on the evolution of the flagellum or even cilia. Now extrapolate this to other structures such as eyes or reproductive systems. This will give you some long nights.

Get back to me and let me know what you think of some of my answers. Im open to discussio any time.

Camaban

&gt;&gt;I bet you in a million years it would still be recognizable as a cat of some sort. the problem lies in that most animals that are bred to this day are genetically inferior to the original animal. We see this in dogs with poor vision, heart problems, many genetic flaws. So in a millions years you have a cat who looks pretty but dies in about a year because of all of the "new" defects it aquired while being bred.

As for dogs. the main problem there is inbreeding. (My old dog was a border collie showdog. bred to look good, have a certain frame, etc) He had arthiritis, epilepsy, constant ear and skin infections, etc. My current dog is a border collie bred for a farm. (and not nearly as inbred) and is probably one of the toughest (for putting up with problems) dogs I've ever seen, even if highly strung. as for Wolves, that's because it's a fiercely darwinian environment there, and Wolves honestly need to be quick, strong, tough, intelligent, etc to survive and reproduce (which is why dogs used as pets are often weak and thick as two short planks, seeing as they have no challenges)

&gt;&gt;So in a millions years you have a cat who looks pretty but dies in about a year because of all of the "new" defects it aquired while being bred.

You're mistaking bred with inbred here. I mean, if you started sleeping with your sister, and any kids you had started doing the same, and so on, not very far down the line, your descendants wouldn't be very healthy either. (and that would be more or less the same way many dogs are bred. Ancient Roman noble families had the same problem (they were so intermarried it wasn't funny. especially for the women of a particularly ancient line)

&gt;&gt;Marspials are found in most parts of the world and fossils of many kangaroo like animals have been found here in the states.

I'm curious here (never heard of any marsupials outside Australia) Wouldn't have any sources, would you?

&gt;&gt;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did God do such a bad job designing our lower backs? So many people visiting Chiropractors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See above. Lower back problems have many causes, obesity, genetics, diseases. go to a gym and strenghten your muscles, with a little excerise you'll be fine. Get out of that chair for once.

Ankles?

And how about choking to death? (the price we pay for speech. not quite sure how it works, but our throats are configured differently to animals with speech, which makes us far more prone to choking. someone else might have a better idea than me)

&gt;&gt;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did God make horrible things like ticks, leaches, salmonella, and the AIDS virus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The animals you list are necessary in certain ecological niche's. As far as bacteria and Viruses: Creationist standpoint- god released death into the world, disease and famine, because of our sin.

If they weren't there, the ecology would still be there, it would simply be different. IE, if you wiped out, say, birds. many species would die out, but there would still be plenty of species left that rely on other animals. it would cause damage, but our ecology would simply change.

Quetzal

Just a quick correction ('cause I'm actually an evil pedant in disguise). Don't insist too hard on the "no marsupials" in the New World. Prior to the creation of the Panama land bridge, the populations of marsupials and placentals in South America was about evenly divided. IIRC, most of the carnivores were marsupials, and most of the herbivores were placentals (although it wasn't strictly divided like that). Saber-toothed marsupial "cats" (Thylacosmilodon) spring to mind.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Daydreamer

Translation: I can refute your points, but I won't bother to address flaws you see in mine.

Wrong.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>

Argument from ignorance.

What happened to descent with modification?

Microbiology is evolution's last frontier - because its soft tissue, little is left by our ancestors to study.

Argument from ignorance and totally wrong to boot, see below.

Argument from ignorance.

The parts however, can function independently. Its motor is highly homologous to the surface proteins used to eject bits of stuff out of the cell, almost identical infact. Also, a flagellum minus the moving bits would simply be a pseudopod - a false foot for crawling around and nabbing things.

Eyes - <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/peepers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/peepers.htm</a>
Reproductive systems are simply highly complex versions of the little injectors prokaryotes to trade DNA.

'Fraid they've been deal with.

The same old rehashed Creationist arguments we've tossed away dozens of times.

But according to your opening sentence, not to argument. Not very sporting of you.

RufusAtticus

Madmike. there are some flaws with your answers.

E.B. Ford explained it best a few decades ago. Cave dwelling populations lose sight because emigration removes sight genes from the population. Animals with functioning sight will tend to seek light sources and leave the cave. Over time, eventually the only creatures that are left are ones that are effectively sightless.

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Point to any scientific literature that uses such a mechanism. Your own example used natural selection which is an evolutionary process. I suggest you read <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" target="_blank">Introduction to Evolutionary Biology</a> before you continue.

That seems somewhat contradictory to a view that God is a loving god. But then again, the Old Testament and the New Testament don't portray God in the same light.

So what? Humans are still recognizable as primates, mammals, amniotes, and tetrpods owing to our evolutionary heritage. That doesn't negate the novelty that makes us human or that makes house cats house cats.

You are wrong. Those "genetic inferiorities" arrise in pedigree breeds because of the high use of inbreeding to preserve fashionable traits. Since biology doesn't propose that inbreeding is a primary mechanism of evolution, your comments aren't much of a problem.

Come again? Are you sure you want to make this claim? If so, how do you account for the well known and well tested mechanisms of natural selection, drift, migration, and mutation? You really should check out that introduction.

Its funny that you should bring this up, since molecular biology has produced some insights in the evolution of flagella. See these comments by biologist Larry Moran: <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=abbv9q%2424f8%241%40bioinfo. med.utoronto.ca&rnum=6" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=abrn9b%241777%241%40bioinfo. med.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">here</a>.

Is this some sort of rehash of "what good is half an eye" and "with whom did the first sexual organism mate?" Both of which are two of silliest "evolutionist" stumpers I've seen.

~~RvFvS~~

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Camaban

&gt;&gt;Just a quick correction ('cause I'm actually an evil pedant in disguise). Don't insist too hard on the "no marsupials" in the New World. Prior to the creation of the Panama land bridge, the populations of marsupials and placentals in South America was about evenly divided. IIRC, most of the carnivores were marsupials, and most of the herbivores were placentals (although it wasn't strictly divided like that). Saber-toothed marsupial "cats" (Thylacosmilodon) spring to mind.

If I read it in a spirit other than it was intended, apologies, but with how it was written, I assumed that he meant Living non-Australian marsupials

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

Secular Pinoy

Hahaha!!! Semantics! That's the best you can do to challenge Evolution?

So they do not even spend some amount of energy for maintenance? Show me journal articles.