Replies

So some are easier to convince than others, depending on the subject. Let me give you an example. I was working out on an exercise bicycle today that has heart sensors located on the handlebars. Now, every now and then I remove one hand or both to towel off some sweat and it loses the signal. It temporarily goes into a different mode, and assumes I have just removed my hands, as opposed to gone into cardiac arrest.

It really is POSSIBLE that I went into cardiac arrest, but PROBABLE that I just removed a hand from the sensor. That is why alarms don’t go off every time the machine loses a pulse. A machine in a hospital DOES have alarms because the probability of the worst is much higher there.

The same concept is true here. It is POSSIBLE that the weed is new, but PROBABLE that it was just missed. I assume the probable until the “possible but improbable” has been proved to my satisfaction. ‘Course, each person has a different level of evidence needed before he will believe an improbable claim, depending on his trust of the source of the info.

That Is why I needed more evidence before I could be convinced that this weed is really new.

That is also why I am a Creationist who believes in Micro-evolution, although I consider it actually micro-devolution. I think of it as rust. It is merely the decay of something created – and the rust most definitely did not create it.

Besides, evolutionary science is about how, Creationism is about WHY.

It is POSSIBLE that the weed is new, but PROBABLE that it was just missed.

What evidence do you have to support the idea that it was just missed? And if you don't have any, isn't the idea that it was more likely missed simply your unsupported assumption? In which case, why should someone believe it over the (supported) theory that it is new?

evolutionary science is about how

Acutally there is no 'how' to evolution. They have been looking for it for 150 years and the best they have come up with is 'natural selection' and the 'struggle for life'. Problem is that natural selection destroys, it does not create and there is no Malthusian 'struggle for life'. Species are very adaptable and can make do quite well in different circumstances and with varied amounts of nutrition.