Says who? That is known as an argument from ignorance. Just because you are incapable of grasping how something might have occurred does not make it magic.
Just because someone floats does not mean they are a witch.
Posted on 12/12/2006 8:11:24 AM PST by HHKrepublican_2
A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the Creation Museum.
But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
"We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.
"The museum is right under that archway there," said Mark Looy, vice president for ministry relations, standing in the foyer next to an animatronics dinosaur that is munching on a synthetic plant.
Playful dinosaurs
The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Well, I suppose it is if you pull a couple of quotation marks out of nowhere and simply assert that it's only a "loss of genetic information". Of course that doesn't reflect that there is merely a difference in alleles, a difference in feeding patterns, a difference in growth and seasonality, etc.
There's nothing in what 49th posted to tell you that this is due to a "loss of genetic information" in either population, let alone in both. Indeed, at least between both populations collectively, there has clearly been a gain in genetic information simply from the fact that they have different alleles (different versions of some of the same genes, which means more versions in total).
Besides, there's no rule that evolution can't occur from the loss of genetic information. It can occur that way, and/or from a gain of information, and/or from the content of genetic information merely changing. ALL of those things (if they become fixed in actual populations of living organisms) are evolution by definition and by fact.
Nice try, but of course there are plenty of fossil types that are NOT prone to reworking (e.g. being formed in one sediment, then eroding out of that sediment and being consolidating into another) and therefore COULD falsify evolution and/or the conventional geological time scale, IF they existed (which they don't).
Consider that a fossil must be robust to be reworked. For example a clam shell, or even a leg bone or other large sturdy bone from a mammal or a reptile, might easily get reworked. But not a leaf. A leaf, even if fossilized, simply wouldn't survive long enough on a depositional surface to get reworked. Nor would small, delicate bones like those of most fishes. Nor would a complete and articulated skeleton. Dozens and dozens of bones don't erode out of one sediment and then get consolidated into another just happening to all end up back together and falling into the correct arrangement.
There are plenty of fossils that are clearly and indisputably in situ (formed in place), and therefore COULD falsify evolution without reworking being possible as an explanation, but no such exist.
Bah! Dey's all the "Dinosaur KIND". All 57 pages of 'em. Where's the evolution there? Now, show me a Wombat evolving from a Tyrannosaurus...
My wife found herself on the receiving end of German TV cameras over this new facility. She very wisely, as she is very wise , refused to be drawn into the debate. She turned the whole interview around , where it belonged. What is YOUR problem with it ? That was her challenge to the camera. I'm sure it is on the cutting room floor .
You missed one.
While too lazy to research physically, there's yet a reference to a "Tishament" (Hebr.), referenced as a "reptile" in one verse of Genesis, and then as a "bird" in a subsequent verse.
And spontaneous appearance from unknown 'natural' causes isn't magic?
Your 'arguments' apply equally to your position.
Woodmorappe is criticized for pointing out just the type of small, delicate, out-of-order fossils that you say can't be reworked.
They must really be out-of-order then, huh?
Thanks. I figured you really had no idea what the concept entails.
Elsie, if the best you can do is blurt the same tired litany again and again and again and again, I'll thank you not to ping me to it.
I'm interested in a discussion with you. I'm not interested in your cut-and-paste.
I know there's no way to win those requests. If I answer, the discussion turns to how thoroughly I understand 'fossil reworking'.
If I point you to the information to read for yourself, the discussion turns to how I must not understand 'fossil reworking'.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Meanwhile, the point that an out-of-order human fossil would be explained away by fossil reworking gets ignored.
It's an old, tired game but its the only that has any legs in evo-land.
No, it's called an 'argument from ignorance' because you don't even know if the details exist at all. This is a totally different realization altogether.
"Science keep looking and you throw up your hand and say God did it. What is the evidence you provide to support your contention? Your own ignorance."
Actually, all of the work done to date demonstrating the impossibility of either life or the universe spontaneously creating itself is the evidence. It is only the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism that lets you pretend that a 'natural' origin even exists.
"It's a very tenuous position you put God in. You have relegated his acts to the decreasing number of unknowns. Everytime science fills a gap in knowledge, God looses a little richness."
Actually not. The naturalist work done to-date continues to confirm the impossibility of either the universe of life assembling itself spontaneously. The evidence against this myth grows larger each day.
I do recognize your need to generate the strawman argument claiming that creationists assign all unknowns to God. It appears to support the naturalist paradigm.
The wonder of God's creation grows daily from both science's successes and failures.
Course, you have to get your head out of the 'commitment to naturalism' box to even begin to see such a thing.
No he isn't. Most of his examples are pollen, spores and such. Small, maybe, but not delicate, and ubiquitous as heck. VERY easily reworked (or contaminating sediments they weren't ever actually part of).
Of course the obvious thing about such ubiquitous fossils as pollen is that the anomalous findings should be REPEATABLE in a given formation. But of course they aren't.
Woodmorappe is criticized for pointing out just the type of small, delicate, out-of-order fossils that you say can't be reworked.
No he isn't. Most of his examples are pollen, spores and such. Small, maybe, but not delicate, and ubiquitous as heck. VERY easily reworked (or contaminating sediments they weren't ever actually part of).
Of course the obvious thing about such ubiquitous fossils as pollen is that the anomalous findings should be REPEATABLE in a given formation. But of course they aren't.
What "out of order human fossil" are you talking about? And how has it been "explained away"?
The naturalist work done to-date continues to confirm the impossibility of either the universe of life assembling itself spontaneously. The evidence against this myth grows larger each day.
What "work done to date?" And what evidence?
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.