Barbarian observes:
That's not what it says. It just says they were created in the beginning. Doesn't say what sequence or how long.
No, I'm suggesting that you not put words in God's mouth. Don't add words like "universe" if God didn't see fit to put them there.
1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural. Definition of Heaven from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heaven
Depends on the beginning. In Genesis, He doesn't talk about the origin of the universe. Later, Jesus uses "beginning" to mean the start of the human race. Entirely different things.
Quote scripture.
Barbarian suggests:
Show us where it says "the universe."
No "universe?" How about that? In fact, at the time, "heavens" meant what you could see from the Earth.
Exactly, you can see the universe from Earth.
Barbarian suggests:
Instead of "interpreting" it, why not just take it as it is, without any additions?
That's what I'm doing, according to the dictionary I'm right. I suggest staying with the field you "specialize" in, instead of trying to correct the scholars.
Adding words is not a good idea.
But it doesn't say that, does it? "The beginning" seems to refer to the Earth, not the universe. And much later, Jesus uses "the beginning" to mean something even later, the first humans.
Quote scripture.
Barbarian asks:
How does disruptive selection contradict science?
Barbarian observes:
That's a testable claim. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional between the groups.
(declines to do so)
Apes and humans, are not connected together. Don't care what any scientists says, we're about as similar as a Model T Ford with a space ship.
So you already know there are transitions. But just so everyone can see, name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll show you.
Apes and humans.
Barbarian asks:
How do embryos contradict science?
Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, modern textbooks use photographs. They make the same point the drawings did. Haeckel's drawings where altered to make it appear that not only homology but recapitulation was true. But no textbook in the last half-century has used them that way. Haeckel's drawings and photographs both show homology to be true.
Haeckel's drawings do not show them to be true. They're altered drawings that do not belong in textbooks. In fact my textbook uses them.
Yep. Even Gould, the guy you cited.
Go check the textbooks for yourself. They've used photos for a long time.
Incorrect photos.
Nope. You made that up. "Interlink" is not a word I would ever use for that.
I did not make that up. You said that mutations and natural selection are not related. Interlink is a word for relation.
If you told him I said that, I wouldn't be surprised.
You made an assertion, I checked with my teachers and they said it was false.
Barbarian chuckles:
It probably outrages creationists, that textbook publishers (who aren't scientists) just went over to photographs, which show the same data.
Show me a recent textbook that uses Haeckel's drawings for anything but a cautionary tale.
Can't take a picture of my textbook on winter break.
Barbarian asks:
How does an article in a London Newspaper contradict science?
Barbarian chuckles:
Except it wasn't. The newspaper (not scientists) took a report of a primate tooth, and blew it into an imaginary animal, with a family. No scientist did that, and when a mammalogist took a look at it, he quickly identified it as a javelina tooth, oddly worn to look like that of a primate.
You got me on this one.
Nope. It was worn in an odd way. Which fooled a dinosaur specialist, but not a mammologist.
Show us that.
Tell me what to show.
Barbarian observes:
How does an anonymous fraud contradict science?
Do I need to elaborate on this?
Barbarian observes:
Whoever it was, was pretty good at it. We don't know if it was a creationist who did it or not, but we do know an evolutionist debunked it.
Well, there was always a problem with it. You see, evolutionary theory depended on the large skull coming after an upright posture; Piltdown didn't fit, which was why it was pushed off into the corner in books on evolution.
Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's take a look at them, and see how it goes. Pick one to start and we'll see. If you can't decide tell us about the moths first. It's one of my favorite creationist scams.
Barbarian observes:
You've been had on that one, I'm afraid. In fact, when Jonathan Wells made the accusation, he cited a reference that specifically states that the moths rest on tree trunks. Would you like to see the relevant literature?
Wells cited the work of Majerus, indeed the very work in which this appears:
During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001–2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.
Majerus discusses the issue here:
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
In short, Wells completely misrepresented what Majerus had written. And he has no excuse, since he cites the very article that gives lie to his claims.
I'm not convinced, the person who recommended Wells article to me is pretty smart.
I recognize that Darwin's four points remain tested and valid, and I know Christianity is the hope of mankind.
Darwin made his theory so he could go against God. You can't make me believe that something of God has mislead so many people into evil. Tip: If it's disturbing, evil, etc it's not of God.
Barbarian, regarding how Eric got taken down the garden path:
Here's a hint: if you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Hugo Chavez to explain it to you.