Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
Actually the Creatonist mythos did pretty much stagnate until that great prophet of old, Gutenberg.
It is a good question but it still does not patch any of the giant holes in the TOE.
Be careful how you talk about all of those 'advanced, 'enlightened', 'unsuperstitious', 'scientific', 'rational' ones otherwise you could provoke another murder spree. Seriously, compare the 100 MILLION murders of Communism/Atheism to what the 1 billion Muslims on the planet have done. The Islamic killers look like utter incompetent small timers.
...in the seventeenth century [1644], in his great work, Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (D. Appleton and Co., 1897, p. 9).
These claims have become such chestnuts that they have standard responses: See CC300 & CB200. (far be it from me to add to logorrhea! :-)
Interesting point. And difficult to answer from the Creationist pov. Hmmmm.
Hegelianism is the intellectual grandfather of Marxism, Naziism and Italian fascism. Hegelianism is far more responsible for those 100 million deaths than atheism ever could be.
The only answer I've ever seen is that what we consider "modern" animals were merely the created kinds that were smarter or faster runners as they sought higher ground during the Flood. Or that the "modern" animals were less dense, so they floated to the top of the sediments as the churned-up muddy waters precipitated out, while the more "primitive" animals were merely the ones that had the denser bodies. Or something along those lines.
The Marxists deny Hegel (and would've killed him if they could) just like they deny anything that does not come from Marx, Engels, Lenin and the current tin-pot dictator.
For anybody that thinks they are oh not so bad, Lenin had a pretty correct term - useful idiots.
But now I am off to better things for real.
If so they should still exist in ancient fossil records. I should see a modern horse, or giraffe, or even human from 250 million years ago. Or even modern plant life should show up in the fossil record. So far they do not and the floating to the top doesn't make sense.
It is not the number of pre-Cambrian fossils but the organisms that they represent.
Changing the terminology still does not explain anything.
How so? It seems the deniers of evolution change the debate every day, yet the debate keeps going over the same track. But, going around and around is also evolution.
Those are my prefacing remarks.
Yet here you have brought a wonderful example of another type of IDEA evolution -- that of a infection, a disease, a virus so to speak.
The changes to published definitons of the word THEORY indicate that "Darwinism" is a serious viral infection -- the viruses genetic markers are obvious in the defintions themselves.
Darwinism is a virus of the idea space, and it has sickened not only dictionaries, but Science itself. In all fact, Science is very much infected.
But don't take my word for it. At talkorigins they discuss this:
The alleged fossilized finger promoted by Baugh and associates is more likely just an interesting shaped rock or concretion. I was allowed to personally examine the "finger" several years ago, and saw nothing in it to suggest it is a fossil of any sort. Nor do I know any mainstream scientist or regards it as a fossilized finger. Contrary to the suggestions in the NBC show, it does not show bones in the CT scans. The dark area in the center of the scans are not well defined and are likely due to differences in the density of rock at the middle of the concretion, or the greater mass of rock the rays passed through at the center than the edge of the rock. Last, a key point that Baugh did not reveal in the show is that the "finger" was not found in situ, but rather in a loose gravel pit some distance from Glen Rose. Therefore, like the Burdick print it cannot be reliably linked to an ancient formation, and is of no antievolutionary value, even if it were a real fossilized finger.
The Gallup Organization has been polling the public on this issue since 1982, when 38 percent indicated a belief in the creationist explanation of life's origin, 33 percent believed in theistic (God-directed) evolution, and 9 percent chose the “no God” account. The trend has been steadily toward creationism, and by November 2004, 45 percent chose the creationist explanation, 38 percent the theistic evolutionist account, and 13 percent the “no God” explanation.In 1982, theistic evolution plus atheism outpolled creationism by a bare four points. (33 TE plus 9 A = 42, versus 38 C.) In 2004, it was 38 TE plus 13 A = 51 over 45 percent C. All the numbers cited went up in the interval at the expense of the no-opinion lobby. Not only is the anti-creation percentage margin greater, but it has moved over the fifty percent margin which tells a campaign the undecideds can't move this one.
How does that represent a stready trend toward creationism? Is this guy dreaming?
Darwin himself had doubts about the viability of natural selection in his study of the human eye. His commentary in The Origin of Species is illuminating:OK, never mind. Another lying butthead (from DI?)To suppose that the eye...
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.
