How do Creationist Explain This?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Depends on the detail. Not many specifics are given in the account. One facet that the narrative reveals, is the Ark's dimensions and the ratios thereof: for the purpose it served -- simply to float -- with no power-driven source and no steering needed -- it's ratio's of length to width to height, 30:5:3, were ideal. They are ratios that modern shipbuilders such as the US Navy, uses today.

Interesting that the Author gave us that!

Yes, no possible way the author could have been familiar with, you know, boats, and simply scaled up from them. Nope, obviously it's proof of... divine... something or other...

 

[Jose Fly]

Depends on the detail.

Over the last few months as you JWs try and press the Biblical flood story, it's been one miracle after another. I honestly don't know why you even bother trying to advocate it, when every time you're faced with a challenge you can't answer you just fall back on "God did it". I mean, by the same token anyone can make up any story whatsoever, and whenever something seems implausible or impossible, just say "God did that".

Seems rather pointless.

 

[Jose Fly]

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

Are "dog" and "cat" examples of "kinds"? If so, how did you determine them to be so?

Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

For the love of.......would you guys get some new talking points???!!!

I haven't looked through this thread yet, but my bet is someone has already posted to you that the coelacanths from the fossil record are in a different taxonomic family than the ones alive today. The question is, are you capable of incorporating that information into your narrative and giving up this ridiculous and ignorant creationist talking point?

Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

Are you capable and interested in a good discussion of those subjects, or are you just parroting something you read on a creationist website, book, pamphlet, etc.?

EDIT: I now see that you pasted this same material several times in this thread. That makes me wonder.....where did you get this? Have you been reading through the scientific literature on pleiotropy and DNA transcription, and the above is your summary? Or did you get this from somewhere else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

Oh brother! You can't refute that which you do not understand. You are only making yourself foolish when you say that dogs cannot transmorgrify into cats. You know what tells us that? The theory of evolution. Dogs will always be dogs just as you and your descendants will always be apes. Change of minds is a creationist strawman. By the way, macroevolution has been directly observed too. You should also try to learn the meaning of terms that you use.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

Not "considered" , known to be,if you cannot be honest why bother posting? And I provided links that showed your last claim is wrong. Coelacanth is an entire family. Your statement is akin to you saying that there is no difference between man and .lemurs. You may not be able to see the differences but they are more than obvious to those that study these fish.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

If you are only going to continually shout your ignorance to the world you only make this too easy. You appear to think that "dragonfly" is a species. That is an entire infraorder:

Dragonfly - Wikipedia

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

An even more obvious error. There are countless species of fish which all differ from each other. If you value your toes never go hunting. Though the woodland creatures will probably have a good laugh.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

Another foolish statement. There are countless mutations that are information. Ask properly and I will support this claim. I know that you cannot support yours so I am not even going to bother asking.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

Nope, that is merely an argument from ignorance fallacy. And it is a moving of the goal posts to abiogenesis, an open admission in your part that you were wrong in your previous claims. But since it was a Gish Gallop when I showed your first claim to be wrong you lost right there. Thanks for continuing to support the theory of evolution by using such poor arguments against it.

 

[youknowme]

You're forgetting that favorable changes in one category can actually be overall detrimental. Let's take breeds of dogs for example. You have various kinds of dogs specialized to do specific things better. For example grey hounds are very fast and pit bulls are good at fighting.

But as is well known; a "mutt" is overall a healthier dog. Because it's gene pool is more diverse and so even though it's only a mutt; yet it is overall more adept at survival.

What we have in this experiment is a petridish environment where the best way to survive is to resist antibiotics. But is that true in the real world? Not as much. The regular "normal" bacteria will probably be more adept survivors in the real world; except maybe in a hospital where they use large amounts of antibiotics.

When humans selectivity breed then the role of natural selection is being diminished and replaced. Humans collect variations that they find useful to humans or because they simply find it interesting. So in this case it is not natural selection that preserves the variation, but rather it is the humans involved in the the selective breeding.

Natural selection will preserve favorable variations while removing unfavorable variations due to the survival of the fittest principle, an idea initially sparked in Darwin by the writings of Malthus. Now which variations provide an advantage will be contextualized to the environment, if the environment changes what was once favorable could become unfavorable and vise versa. Natural selection would then start to preserve those variations which are favorable in the new environment and remove those which are now unfavorable. This function of natural selection has been observed: Peppered Moth and natural selection - Moths Count

So many breeds of domestic dogs if place in the wild would likely die, as they don't possess the necessary adaptations to survive in that environment; however, likewise if you took a wild wolf and placed in the middle of a big city there is a good chance it would get ran over by a car or killed by humans in self defense, while a domestic dog would have a better chance of eliciting human assistance. What allows a variation to be considered an "advantage" is directly related to the current environment the species finds itself in. So natural selection is not just directed by mutations but also by the environment.

Just a side note: Natural selection will not act on variations which are neither favorable or unfavorable, which is why humans have an appendix, it is does not provide an advantage but it also does not create a disadvantage, so natural selection will not be able to remove it.

 

[youknowme]

Heres the thing though, a very large book dont mean the blueprints can be just anything. Our blueprints are different from trees or lions.

Blueprints for a house or car are different then blueprints for a skyscraper building.

Genetic code is nearly universal, which points to a common ancestry for all species. Even minor differences in genetic information can lead to substantial changes. Chimpanzees share approximately 99% of our DNA, and yet that 1% changes things dramatically. So, it seems that God is an architect of such skill that He can use one "blueprint" for all of life. Perhaps you only think it requires many "blueprints" because you are not God; however, if you have any actual evidence to support your hypothesis please share it.

 

[Deeje]

Kangaroo Feathers makes a good point. There is no point discussing evidence with someone who doesn't understand or value evidence.

I guess there is no point discussing anything with those who are convinced that the evidence they have could not possibly have been misinterpreted by people who likewise want ID to go away.

We show you what is between the lines but you don't want to know. We show you the assumptions and the supposition and suggestions but still you cling to your pet theory like you're defending your mother....it's not unexpected. But we hope to at least lay the groundwork for some research outside of the "evolution is a fact" box and help those people who are undecided to see that it has very little in the way of facts to back it up at all.

The godless will cling to their views because they cannot entertain any other explanation. Thankfully, not everyone is godless but I believe the devil is working on it tirelessly.....like a lion stalking prey, the Bible says.....

 

[Salvador]

I guess there is no point discussing anything with those who are convinced that the evidence they have could not possibly have been misinterpreted by people who likewise want ID to go away.

We show you what is between the lines but you don't want to know. We show you the assumptions and the supposition and suggestions but still you cling to your pet theory like you're defending your mother....it's not unexpected. But we hope to at least lay the groundwork for some research outside of the "evolution is a fact" box and help those people who are undecided to see that it has very little in the way of facts to back it up at all.

The godless will cling to their views because they cannot entertain any other explanation. Thankfully, not everyone is godless but I believe the devil is working on it tirelessly.....like a lion stalking prey, the Bible says.....

I've got no problem believing life on Earth was started by directed panspermia from our cosmic ancestors (intelligent designers), but I know this wasn't done by your God of the Bible, which has already been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Deeje]

I've got no problem believing life on Earth was started by directed panspermia from our cosmic ancestors (intelligent designers), but I know this wasn't done by your God of the Bible, which has already been thoroughly debunked.

Funny that you can believe in extraterrestrials but not in the God of the Bible....btw, what do you think God is, given the definition of an extraterrestrial ?

And life didn't get here by God......? I wonder if he got that memo?

Have you ever thought that if you don't believe in him, then he has reason not to believe in you?

And about that debunking......don't we have to ask...."debunked" by whom?

 

[Salvador]

Funny that you can believe in extraterrestrials but not in the God of the Bible....btw, what do you think God is, given the definition of an extraterrestrial ?

And life didn't get here by God......? I wonder if he got that memo?

Have you ever thought that if you don't believe in him, then he has reason not to believe in you?

And about that debunking......don't we have to ask...."debunked" by whom?

Funny that you can believe in extraterrestrials but not in the God of the Bible....btw, what do you think God is, given the definition of an extraterrestrial ?

And life didn't get here by God......? I wonder if he got that memo?

Have you ever thought that if you don't believe in him, then he has reason not to believe in you?

And about that debunking......don't we have to ask...."debunked" by whom?

The remains of Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia that does indeed debunk the Biblical claim there were only 77 generations between the time of Jesus Christ's generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)
The Bible is wrong when in fact there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, no possible way the author could have been familiar with, you know, boats, and simply scaled up from them. Nope, obviously it's proof of... divine... something or other...

What about the Epic of Gilgamesh? Why didn’t the author of it, make his ark more seaworthy? Whoever he was, he wrote that Utnapishtim created a 120- cubit cube as his ark.

Actually, this 30:5:3 ratio has only recently (in the last two centuries) been discovered to make a vessel seaworthy.

How did Moses know?

 

[Deeje]

The remains of Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia that does indeed debunk the Biblical claim there were only 77 generations between the time of Jesus Christ's generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)
The Bible is wrong when in fact there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

And you know about the Australian Aborigines, do you? Do you also know that they have no written history, so that the time they have inhabited my continent is based on dating methods that I do not believe are very accurate.

You seem to like copying and pasting the same comments as answers to the responses given to you. I think I understood it the first time.

Humans lived way longer before the global flood than they did after it, as I believe I mentioned before. The Bible says that God used a water vapour canopy that was suspended above the atmosphere to flood the world from above and he released water from the depths of the earth to do the job.....the increase in radiation from the sun may well have reduced lifespans as we see humans dying much earlier as the flood faded into history, the story carried all over the world by the people who descended from Noah and his sons. (Genesis 11:1-9)

DNA can be traced back to the mother of us all.

If the flood was a reality, then the carbon 14 method would be inaccurate.

 

[Salvador]

And you know about the Australian Aborigines, do you? Do you also know that they have no written history, so that the time they have inhabited my continent is based on dating methods that I do not believe are very accurate.

You seem to like copying and pasting the same comments as answers to the responses given to you. I think I understood it the first time.

Humans lived way longer before the global flood than they did after it, as I believe I mentioned before. The Bible says that God used a water vapour canopy that was suspended above the atmosphere to flood the world from above and he released water from the depths of the earth to do the job.....the increase in radiation from the sun may well have reduced lifespans as we see humans dying much earlier as the flood faded into history, the story carried all over the world by the people who descended from Noah and his sons. (Genesis 11:1-9)

DNA can be traced back to the mother of us all.

If the flood was a reality, then the carbon 14 method would be inaccurate.

"In a 2011 genetic study by Ramussen et al., researchers took a DNA sample from an early 20th century lock of an Aboriginal person's hair with low European admixture. They found that the ancestors of the Aboriginal population split off from the Eurasian population between 62,000 and 75,000 BP, whereas the European and Asian populations split only 25,000 to 38,000 years BP, indicating an extended period of Aboriginal genetic isolation. These Aboriginal ancestors migrated into South Asia and then into Australia, where they stayed, with the result that, outside of Africa, the Aboriginal peoples have occupied the same territory continuously longer than any other human populations. These findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants who left Africa up to 75,000 years ago. This finding is compatible with earlier archaeological finds of human remains near Lake Mungo that date to approximately 40,000 years ago.

1. Rasmussen, Morten; Guo, Xiaosen; et al. (7 October 2011). "An Aboriginal Australia Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into Asia" (PDF). Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 334 (6052): 94–98. doi:10.1126/science.1211177. PMC 3991479. PMID 21940856. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
2. ^ "The first Aboriginal genome sequence confirms Australia's native people left Africa 75,000 years ago". Australian Geographic. 23 September 2011

The same genetic study of 2011 found evidence that Aboriginal peoples carry some of the genes associated with the Denisovan (a species of human related to but distinct from Neanderthals) peoples of Asia; the study suggests that there is an increase in allele sharing between the Denisovans and the Aboriginal Australians genome compared to other Eurasians and Africans. Examining DNA from a finger bone excavated in Siberia, researchers concluded that the Denisovans migrated from Siberia to tropical parts of Asia and that they interbred with modern humans in South-East Asia 44,000 years ago, before Australia separated from Papua New Guinea approximately 11,700 years BP. They contributed DNA to Aboriginal Australians along with present-day New Guineans and an indigenous tribe in the Philippines known as Mamanwa. This study makes Aboriginal Australians one of the oldest living populations in the world and possibly the oldest outside of Africa, confirming they may also have the oldest continuous culture on the planet. The Papuans have more sharing alleles than Aboriginal peoples. The data suggest that modern and archaic humans interbred in Asia before the migration to Australia."

1. "DNA confirms Aboriginal culture is one of the Earth's oldest". Australian Geographic. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
2. ^ Callaway, Ewen (2011). "First Aboriginal genome sequenced". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2011.551. ISSN 1476-4687. Retrieved 16 January 2016.

 

[Deeje]

"In a 2011 genetic study by Ramussen et al., researchers took a DNA sample from an early 20th century lock of an Aboriginal person's hair with low European admixture. They found that the ancestors of the Aboriginal population split off from the Eurasian population between 62,000 and 75,000 BP, whereas the European and Asian populations split only 25,000 to 38,000 years BP, indicating an extended period of Aboriginal genetic isolation. These Aboriginal ancestors migrated into South Asia and then into Australia, where they stayed, with the result that, outside of Africa, the Aboriginal peoples have occupied the same territory continuously longer than any other human populations. These findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants who left Africa up to 75,000 years ago. This finding is compatible with earlier archaeological finds of human remains near Lake Mungo that date to approximately 40,000 years ago.

1. 
   
   
   • Rasmussen, Morten; Guo, Xiaosen; et al. (7 October 2011). "An Aboriginal Australia Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into Asia" (PDF). Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 334 (6052): 94–98. doi:10.1126/science.1211177. PMC 3991479. PMID 21940856. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
   • ^ "The first Aboriginal genome sequence confirms Australia's native people left Africa 75,000 years ago". Australian Geographic. 23 September 2011

The same genetic study of 2011 found evidence that Aboriginal peoples carry some of the genes associated with the Denisovan (a species of human related to but distinct from Neanderthals) peoples of Asia; the study suggests that there is an increase in allele sharing between the Denisovans and the Aboriginal Australians genome compared to other Eurasians and Africans. Examining DNA from a finger bone excavated in Siberia, researchers concluded that the Denisovans migrated from Siberia to tropical parts of Asia and that they interbred with modern humans in South-East Asia 44,000 years ago, before Australia separated from Papua New Guinea approximately 11,700 years BP. They contributed DNA to Aboriginal Australians along with present-day New Guineans and an indigenous tribe in the Philippines known as Mamanwa. This study makes Aboriginal Australians one of the oldest living populations in the world and possibly the oldest outside of Africa, confirming they may also have the oldest continuous culture on the planet. The Papuans have more sharing alleles than Aboriginal peoples. The data suggest that modern and archaic humans interbred in Asia before the migration to Australia."

1. 
   
   
   • "DNA confirms Aboriginal culture is one of the Earth's oldest". Australian Geographic. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
   • ^ Callaway, Ewen (2011). "First Aboriginal genome sequenced". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2011.551. ISSN 1476-4687. Retrieved 16 January 2016.

Yes this is what they believe....you can too if you like, but I will form my own opinions without relying on the opinions of scientists who, in all probability could change their mind tomorrow if something new emerged.....mind you, they would have to fight the entrenched ideas of course, which may take some doing, just like the poor doctor who discovered helicobacter as the cause of stomach ulcers. He was almost run out of town!

My father in law suffered terribly with ulcers for decades, but once the tests and trials were done and the findings corroborated, the recommended course of antibiotics cured him in no time!

This is very typical of the scientific approach IMO....very closed minded when anything steps outside of the box they all occupy.

 

[youknowme]

Yes this is what they believe....you can too if you like, but I will form my own opinions without relying on the opinions of scientists who, in all probability could change their mind tomorrow if something new emerged.....mind you, they would have to fight the entrenched ideas of course, which may take some doing, just like the poor doctor who discovered helicobacter as the cause of stomach ulcers. He was almost run out of town!

My father in law suffered terribly with ulcers for decades, but once the tests and trials were done and the finding corroborated, the recommended course of antibiotics cured him in no time!

This is very typical of the scientific approach IMO....very closed minded when anything steps outside of the box they all occupy.

You seem to be very confused over the differences between opinions and facts.

 

[Salvador]

Humans lived way longer before the global flood than they did after it, as I believe I mentioned before. The Bible says that God used a water vapour canopy that was suspended above the atmosphere to flood the world from above and he released water from the depths of the earth to do the job.....the increase in radiation from the sun may well have reduced lifespans as we see humans dying much earlier as the flood faded into history, the story carried all over the world by the people who descended from Noah and his sons. (Genesis 11:1-9)

DNA can be traced back to the mother of us all.

If the flood was a reality, then the carbon 14 method would be inaccurate.

According to the Bible, 422 years elapsed from the time of Noah's Flood until the birth of Abraham.
( Genesis 11:10-32 ) 529 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 333 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2 ) Thus, the Biblical date Noah's Flood allegedly destroyed all life outside Noah's Ark was no earlier than 2400 BC.

A now living four-thousand-nine-hundred-year-old tree would have been more than 500 years old at the time of Noah's Flood.

The bristle cone pine in California's White Mountains measured by Tom Harlan to be 5,062 years old, would have been way over 600 years old years old at the time of Noah's Flood.

The age of a bristle cone pine trees can be reliably determined by its annual growth ring counts. This method of determining the tree's age is well collaborated with C-14 dating

These trees are living monuments that there was never any globally catastrophic flood 4,400 years before now as claimed in the Bible.

 

[Deeje]

You seem to be very confused over the differences between opinions and facts.

Actually I believe that it is the scientists who promote evolution that have a problem with that distinction. The scientists here tell me that there are no facts in evolution....just evidence. Whatever the evidence points to within the framework of their belief system, must be true. I beg to differ.....

 

[Salvador]

Actually I believe that it is the scientists who promote evolution that have a problem with that distinction. The scientists here tell me that there are no facts in evolution....just evidence. Whatever the evidence points to within the framework of their belief system, must be true. I beg to differ.....

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595[

 

[youknowme]

Actually I believe that it is the scientists who promote evolution that have a problem with that distinction. The scientists here tell me that there are no facts in evolution....just evidence. Whatever the evidence points to within the framework of their belief system, must be true. I beg to differ.....

Have you even read On the Origin of Species?

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes this is what they believe....you can too if you like, but I will form my own opinions without relying on the opinions of scientists who, in all probability could change their mind tomorrow if something new emerged.....mind you, they would have to fight the entrenched ideas of course, which may take some doing, just like the poor doctor who discovered helicobacter as the cause of stomach ulcers. He was almost run out of town!

My father in law suffered terribly with ulcers for decades, but once the tests and trials were done and the finding corroborated, the recommended course of antibiotics cured him in no time!

This is very typical of the scientific approach IMO....very closed minded when anything steps outside of the box they all occupy.

You could not have it more backwards. Creationists, and intelligent designers are closed minded desperately trying to disprove because they know they cannot prove. There are open and closed minded Christians just as there are open minded and closed minded scientists. Science the process is always open minded in its approach. You just do not like to admit its. You can be critical of a scientific idea and challenge it as ID proponents it id just they cannot show any evidence of the intervention of an intelligent design. You question those that say the genesis creation story true and they become the most closed minded. Why because it was written so it is true no exceptions.