But shouldn't -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, April 18, 11:42:12pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: But shouldn't

Author:
Brian

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04/18/02 5:46am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Wade says..." on 02/18/02 11:33am

>True, but one thing I should point out is that many of
>these adaptations are not due to genetic mutation, but
>to ordinary recombination of genes within type.

Your carefully qualified statement is true, but the way you have phrased it is well understood by evolutionists. Now do you dare take the next step and instead say �... ALL of these adaptations...�? If you do, then you better be able to prove it.

>Bacteria that get immunity from mutations are
>�evolutionary cripples� because they experience
>harmful side effects from the mutation.

Again, is this the norm, or an absolute rule? Evolutionists freely acknowledge that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. But not all.

>Because the resistances to antibiotics in bacteria
>(and other changes we see in life forms) result only
>in varied alleles in genes that already exist

I challenge you to give documented proof of this statement.

>... one cannot simply extrapolate the directly observable
>changes we see in these organisms to obtain
>macroevolutionary changes.

Are you familiar enough with the accumulated studies in this field to be able to make such a definitive statement?

>Creation can simply claim
>that these variations are only �horizontal� changes
>that will never result in creating a more complex life
>form because of this. More work needs to be done here
>if you wish to claim that evolution explains this set
>of data better creation.

Creation can say anything it wants, since its basic starting point is an omnipotent God. Science doesn�t have that ability to assign ad-hoc solutions, it must work with what it can understand from the evidence.

I am intimately familiar with both Christian theology and science, and I strongly disagree that Creation is even close to matching science in its ability to provide answers that are not fundamentally driven by a religious preconception.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
I disagree.	Wade A. Tisthammer	04/18/02 1:46pm
Hehehehe (oh wait wrong thread) -- David, 04/18/02 9:32pm You are the one who made the claims -- Brian, 04/19/02 7:19am