Originally posted by RJHindsThe fact that the new generation is different from the old is exactly what evolution is. Descent with modification is the meaning of evolution used by biologists. If you study the way paleontology is used by oil companies you will see that the type of fossils found indicate the age of the strata. Oil companies do this because it works. There is no creationist theory of biology that has any wide acceptance even among creationists.
The virus that survives is an example of survival of the fittess not evolution.
Originally posted by catstormIt's all about the definition. I thought you meant evolution is like the descent of a fish that eventually modifies itself to maybe a frog and then to maybe a rat and then maybe a monkey and then maybe a man and then to you. I have no objection if you just want to refer to evolution as a variation or modification as long as you don't take it to extremes.
The fact that the new generation is different from the old is exactly what evolution is. Descent with modification is the meaning of evolution used by biologists. If you study the way paleontology is used by oil companies you will see that the type of fossils found indicate the age of the strata. Oil companies do this because it works. There is no creationist theory of biology that has any wide acceptance even among creationists.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are the one taking things to extremes. NOBODY says a fish becomes apes. Only YOU. Another case of weaponized creationism. Thing is, we see right through you directly to the motivation.
It's all about the definition. I thought you meant evolution is like the descent of a fish that eventually modifies itself to maybe a frog and then to maybe a rat and then maybe a monkey and then maybe a man and then to you. I have no objection if you just want to refer to evolution as a variation or modification as long as you don't take it to extremes.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by catstormI posted a way to get the book in which Morris made the claim that the craters are the result of a battle between angels and demons. RJ wondered if Morris was joking. He said he is getting the book. I wonder what he will say about it. Was Morris joking?
Creationists have accepted much of what Darwin said. If they were honest they would admit this. Morris' explanation of the moon's craters is a good example of taking things to extremes.
1 edit
Originally posted by catstormWell, that means he IS the crackpot on the street. He probably stands on a soap box and is very convincing to wino's.
I don't think he was joking. And Morris was not some random crackpot on the street. He was President of the Institute for Creation Research.
I mentioned the craters on the moon to RJ, where I said the moon would have taken eons to cool after all that bombardment, the moon must have been red hot but we now know people can walk around on it without much trouble, since at least a dozen people have walked on the moon and such. His reply: The moon was cooled off by water. Ask him if you think I am making this up.
Originally posted by catstormI admit I accept some of what Darwin said. However, that does not mean he was right about all he said and I do not accept all he said. 😏
Creationists have accepted much of what Darwin said. If they were honest they would admit this. Morris' explanation of the moon's craters is a good example of taking things to extremes.
Originally posted by RJHindsThank you for that. No scientist, or anyone else, has been right about everything they said. Are you seriously a geocentrist or are you just enjoying yourself?
I admit I accept some of what Darwin said. However, that does not mean he was right about all he said and I do not accept all he said. 😏
Originally posted by catstormI have always been taught that the earth is round and it spins and rotates around the sun. So I am indoctrinated to believe that just like you are. However, when we receive evidence that things may not be the way we were taught, we should check it out and make a decision.
He is defending geocentrism now in False Science Exposed. Are we sure he isn't putting us on? Maybe getting your entire education from youtube is a bad idea?
I have decided against the flat earth idea in favor of a circular shaped earth. However, the idea that the earth is spinning so fast and we don't get dizzy needs an explanation as well as why the flight times between cities are the same regardless if one is traveling east or west and many other things about it.
Originally posted by catstormWell, I am still considering the evidence. However, the Holy Bible seems to support geocentrism, and if I am going to be consistent and harmonize the Holy Bible with the world, then I should also take a stand on this issue. As yet, I don't see any wiggle room in the Holy Bible to discount geocentrism.
Thank you for that. No scientist, or anyone else, has been right about everything they said. Are you seriously a geocentrist or are you just enjoying yourself?