[whattajoke]

Maybe the author is citing the fact that they have survived for like 250 million years, unchanged. I'd say that was pretty good evidence.

The author does not believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years. I know this because GGG posted the article, and GGG supports a young earth fantasy. I can't imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.

Now, if you're saying that a creature who remains "the same" for such a long period of time somehow contradicts evolutionary theory, you are quite simply incorrect.

First, dragonflies have changed rather dramatically in that time (mostly morphologically) and secondly, even if they hadn't (which they most certainly have), it would still fit into evolutionary theory.

IOW, I don't understand your point - or the point you are trying to convey on the article.

[-YYZ-]

“I can’t imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.”

Are you being sarcastic, or sardonic, or whatever the proper term is? In my experience, GGG, like most young earth creationists, have no trouble at all using articles that back their creationist beliefs while ignoring the fact that the authors of the article in no way share their belief in a young earth (or creationism, for that matter). Not that that is necessarily a problem, just stating a fact.

(including GGG in the “to” list since it is considered bad form here to talk about someone else without pinging them on it, even if it is their own thread)

[dmz]

I can’t imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.
<><><><><><><<>

GGG routinely posts articles in which explicit statements about an old earth are made.

They are also, at least in his eyes, critical of some element of evolutionary theory (do I have that about right, GGG?), so much so that, again in GGG’s eyes, they invalidate evolutionary theory, thereby contributing to the foundering and sinking of the HMS Darwin (to use GGG’s colorful language).

Add to that, the belief espoused by some (I think you have given this one the thumbs up, GGG) on the various crevo threads, that a multi billion year old universe and a 6000 year old earth owe their existence to the same creation event.

Therefore, any article critical of any element of evolutionary theory can be used, because with the notion of above, the age of the universe is no longer an obstacle.

I confess I’m not nearly smart enough (’cuz I’m an evo-atheist, Nazi communist Christ denying monkey lover - who kicks small dogs as I can have no moral underpinnings given my secular humanism) to grasp the idea behind the multi billion year old universe and the 6000 year old earth emanating from the same creation event.

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks for your responses.

The author does not believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years. I know this because GGG posted the article, and GGG supports a young earth fantasy.

Your assumption is illogical.

I can't imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.

You don't know GGG very well.

Now, if you're saying that a creature who remains "the same" for such a long period of time somehow contradicts evolutionary theory, you are quite simply incorrect.

I never made that kind of statement, and If something I said led you to believe that, then please point it out to me.

I have learned that some life forms change very little, some change quite a bit, some do it slowly, some do it quickly, and most of the time the cause of their so called evolution is an adaption to the environment.