Darwin’s Mockingbirds Show Neither ‘Rigid Creation’ Nor Evolution

ICR ^ | November 24, 2008 | Brian Thomas, M.S.*

[GodGunsGuts]

ping :o)

[freedumb2003]

TToE has evolved over time also.

To hold Darwin’s exact theories accountable to findings today is like holding Newton responsible for not getting Einstein’s theory out of the gate.

TToE is a stochastic process — which definitions has been refined over these last several hundred years.

[LiteKeeper]

Evolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors!

[autumnraine]

I don’t think people question adaption, or variations to climate (as in races of people, but we are all still the same species even with different features adapted for different areas of the world).

It’s the species jump that confuses most, including me.

[GodGunsGuts]

What does TToE stand for, and what is its precise definition?

[freedumb2003]

TToE=The Theory Of Evolution. Why do you ask this, when I know you know?

[freedumb2003]

It’s the species jump that confuses most, including me.

Such as?

[GodGunsGuts]

And what is your precise definition of the TToE. Feel free to barrow from another if you must.

[freedumb2003]

And what is your precise definition of the TToE. Feel free to barrow from another if you must.

You don't have room for 100 volumes here.

[freedumb2003]

And what is your precise definition of the TToE. Feel free to barrow from another if you must.

Why are you asking me to define the term that is used in the headline of your post? If you don't know what it is, why are you posting about it?

[dr_lew]

It’s the species jump that confuses most, including me.

How many species of fungus gnats do you suppose there are? Does it confuse you that a fungus gnat could evolve from a fungus gnat? ( The fungus gnats are a family, and in Peterson's Field Guide to the Insects, each family rates a single entry. )

[GodGunsGuts]

You can’t even define TToE?!?! No wonder you guys always lose against Creation Scientists in debate. LOL

[freedumb2003]

You can’t even define TToE?!?! No wonder you guys always lose against Creation Scientists in debate. LOL

A poster declaring victory is not "winning."

And as I said, why are you posting about a subject you have no knowledge of? It is your post -- which part of TToE do you need help with understanding?

[Coyoteman]

Science has not documented these changes between kinds. All evidence points to the exact situation described in the Bible: that each creature reproduces after its own kind. Therefore, though it’s unpopular, favoring observational science over fanciful Darwinian doctrines is the better choice.

More nonsense from creation "science."

Don't you realize that groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which sponsored this article, are committed to upholding the bible at all costs, no matter what?

Don't you realize that what they do is not science, it is religious apologetics? If there is a conflict between the bible and science they have to follow the bible.

That's not science, that's religious dogma. It is the exact opposite of science.

Here are their beliefs, required of all members. See any chance for science in there?

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.

Nope, no science there. Just the opposite--its all belief in scripture and dogma, with no evidence required or even wanted. And no critical thinking tolerated; "We'll tell you what to believe."

I guess if they had any actual scientific evidence they would have produced it long ago, eh?

[freedumb2003]

And please tell me what Accredited University grants PhDs in “Creation Science” and in what Scientific publications said “Scientists” have been published.

[freedumb2003]

I was thinking of posting a thread on Quantum Physics and then challenging anyone who comes onto the thread to define, PRECISELY, what Quantum Physics is.

The fact I have little or knowledge of Quantum Physics but lots of opinions about it means I get to post and talk about it, right?

[GodGunsGuts]

==A poster declaring victory is not “winning.”

Actually, I had in mind the vast majority of Evo scientists who have their respective hats handed to them when they debate Creation scientists.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry, Wiley...as I have said many times, Darwin’s fanciful creation myth is now so full of holes that even your fellow evos are starting to abandon ship.

[freedumb2003]

Actually, I had in mind the vast majority of Evo scientists who have their respective hats handed to them when they debate Creation scientists.

You may reread my post as many times as you wish.