Oops.
Posted on 06/08/2015 7:52:25 AM PDT by fishtank
Crayfish, Caribou, and Scientific Evidence in the Wild
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. *
An unusual law has helped some creation science evidence to “go wild.”
Unsurprisingly (for Bible believers), mounting evidence increasingly shows that only the Genesis explanation of our world’s origin—and Earth’s present ecological equilibrium—makes sense. Animal ecology is purposefully balanced; it’s not a simple hodgepodge of evolutionary “accidents.”
We can thank Congress for much of what we now know about American wildlife, specifically, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration [Pittman-Robertson] Act (P-R Act) in 1937.1 The P-R Act focuses financing of scientific research projects involving field studies of animals in their natural habitats. This approach improves upon stereotypical research done on experimental animals in laboratories because the facts learned in the field are usually more relevant for understanding how animals actually function.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
Oops.
Crayfish and caribou:
Surf ‘n turf!!!
A mandate of natural selection is an ecological balance. You really should read the “other” side and learn how evolution actually works. It must be hard work, building straw men and the like.
“It must be hard work, building straw men and the like.”
I love living at this point in history.
Why?
Because the methods, materials, madness and mythology of pseudo-science is on display in the Global Warming Cult.
These are the same patterns that we saw in the evolution cult generations ago.
We now see that Bill Nye = Al Gore = Charles Darwin.
.
.
.
I know PLENTY of earned PhD scientists who are creationists, and I can at least be confident that although they might be underfunded, they are almost always honest and ethical - which is more than I can say for a lot of other PhD scientists.
Thank you.
“.it’s CRAWFISH!!!!”
Naw, dem’s mudbugs!
Does that explain your penchant for consistently misstating the conclusions and methodology of scientists?
“Institute for Creation Research”
Everything from this site is lies and fantasy.
“Not being a grammar Nazi..but it’s not crayfish..it’s CRAWFISH!!!!”
PLEASE! Either crawdads or mudbugs.
“Caribou interact with other animals (wolves, bears, deerflies, mosquitos), plant life (willow, birch, aspen, tundra lichens), and their expansive geophysical environment, which varies according to seasonal migrations. How caribou populations survive, and thrive, is an ongoing, complex, and non-random balancing act.”
The author confuses causes with results. Random effects on individuals in a large population lead to static uniformity. This apparent uniformity in the characteristics of a large population might, in fact, change over the long term as ecological pressures change.
Voilà! Evolution
In this case, I have to say that the author doesn't know much about the Pittman Robertson Act.
“Everything from this site is lies and fantasy.”
That’s not true.
I’ve found in them to have a good eye for interesting scientific findings.
They’ve cited a lot of good article in the literature I might not otherwise have seen.
I think when you say “lies and fantasy” you are referringnto their opinions and, shall we say, non-sequitar conclusions.
The pro-evolution posters rarely back up their claims with any substance. When they do attempt to defend evolution their posts and links are often riddled with non-scientific words [like maybe, could, should, expect to, probably, possibly, etc].
This is to be expected b/c there is zero scientific evidence supporting macro-evolution. They usually attempt to steer around this by claiming changes within a species as equivalent to macro-evolution [changing from one kind into another]. In reality when a specific population can no longer re-produce with another of it’s own kind this is truly an example of devolution. Nothing new has been added to the genetic code, but something definitely has been lost permanently.
Endogenous retroviruses. Study up.
Words like maybe, could, should, expect to, probably, possibly, etc., are used in science in order to demonstrate that unknown variables may influence outcomes. Science proves nothing, it explains the likelihood of events based on observation and experimentation. That said, you state there is “zero scientific evidence supporting macro-evolution”; what support do you have for that claim?
And you have zero observations and experimentations to support evolutionary conjectures regarding ages past! It does not follow the steps of the scientific method therefore it is SWAG ~ Scientific Wild Ass Guesses.
And yet - still a virus!
Your claim of “zero observations and experimentations” is simply untrue; to say there is a mountain of evidence supporting evolutionary theory is a ridiculous understatement. The fact that you fail to understand or accept those findings is neither here not there - scientific facts exist without your approval.
Ah - the moving of the goalpost defense. I don’t think you quite know what macroevolution means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.