Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And here is the full article in PDF form: http://www.discovery.org/f/8411
Sorry to have to burst your bubble but maybe you will learn and discard the unproven bologna of evolution.
This is why I rely on palaeontological evidence that large scale evolutionary changes did occur. They put the Kibosh on your denial, even if that scale of evolutionary change cannot of course be demonstrated in mere years.
In that respect (as discussed earlier) the usual definitions of speciation like genetic divergence or an observable difference in appearance one group from another really don't apply. In talking 'macro evolution' only four legs to a fishlike critter will be considered macro evolution. And when we produce it, you cover your eyes and say that you don't want to see it.
That article is making at least an understandable point, but is overdrawing the conclusions, as are you, in the never ending attempt to explain away huge swathes of evolutionary evidence with pretty minor quibbles, really.
This is why I rely on palaeontological evidence that large scale evolutionary changes did occur. They put the Kibosh on your denial, even if that scale of evolutionary change cannot of course be demonstrated in mere years.
In that respect (as discussed earlier) the usual definitions of speciation like genetic divergence or an observable difference in appearance one group from another really don't apply. In talking 'macro evolution' only four legs to a fishlike critter will be considered macro evolution. And when we produce it, you cover your eyes and say that you don't want to see it.
That article is making at least an understandable point, but is overdrawing the conclusions, as are you, in the never ending attempt to explain away huge swathes of evolutionary evidence with pretty minor quibbles, really.
But palaeontological evidence doesn't prove evolution nor does it prove large scale changes did occur. Surely you know better than that.
And we know God created Adam Himself without evolution so you are just barking up the proverbial tree.
Actually it didn't miss you, it is just that you and those educating you either missed it or were too afraid to talk about it. All the evidence is right before your eyes with all the fossils buried all over the world.
The only way for there to be proof of a global flood is if all the principles of geology and the laws of physics including gravity are incorrect. Or do you think I am so stupid that when I look at a cross section and compare it to what the creationists state happen and they do not line up that I should stop beliving what I actually see and simply take them at their word? The sediments do not line up for a global flood and even the single ash layer is proof against it. If you think you know more about geology than the entire geology community world wide for a more than a century than that is a false pride.
The evidence is not there, go and look at the geological cross section with your own eyes. Funny how a global flood distributed fossils and sediments in this area laterally not horizonally. For it to be a global flood every area must have evidence for it and that is simply not the case, not blind faith or fear of the big bad academic bogeyman or any other of your insane ideas, but simply from going out and looking at the sediments.
And you have yet to anwer about the eyes. God or your proof are wrong or perhaps both of them.
My geology profs and TAs were not cowards. How dare you accuse them of cowardness and academic dishonesty. Some one with such limited knowledge of science especially biology and geology accussing these fine people of cowardness and dishonesty just because they do not accept the Bible instread of what they see.
This is why I rely on palaeontological evidence that large scale evolutionary changes did occur. They put the Kibosh on your denial, even if that scale of evolutionary change cannot of course be demonstrated in mere years.
In that respect (as discussed earlier) the usual definitions of speciation like genetic divergence or an observable difference in appearance one group from another really don't apply. In talking 'macro evolution' only four legs to a fishlike critter will be considered macro evolution. And when we produce it, you cover your eyes and say that you don't want to see it.
That article is making at least an understandable point, but is overdrawing the conclusions, as are you, in the never ending attempt to explain away huge swathes of evolutionary evidence with pretty minor quibbles, really.
If they aren't from an ID site with the YHWH seal of approval they aren't valid. Gawd, AREQUIPA, what planet are you living on?
But palaeontological evidence doesn't prove evolution nor does it prove large scale changes did occur. Surely you know better than that.
And we know God created Adam Himself without evolution so you are just barking up the proverbial tree.
No, we don't actually . You continuing to say so doesn't make it fact. Humans have been around for 6 million years, there was no world wide flood, and moses didn't exist. But keep believing in fables if it makes you all the happier .
Actually it didn't miss you, it is just that you and those educating you either missed it or were too afraid to talk about it. All the evidence is right before your eyes with all the fossils buried all over the world.
Eusebius, your arguments are really not very good, and you invariably get beaten (not that you even admit it) but niobocy can beat you in piling up cheap points in an exchange of irrelevant trash -talk back-chat.
But palaeontological evidence doesn't prove evolution nor does it prove large scale changes did occur. Surely you know better than that.
And we know God created Adam Himself without evolution so you are just barking up the proverbial tree.
Again you end up where you always do. Denying pretty compelling evidence and pretending that it somehow proves your faith based genesis - literalist claims which have not a shred of worthwhile evidence. Your denial only affords us the the opportunity of driving home how putrid the Creationist argument is.
It's a shame some childlike people are so terrified of life outside an ancient book of fairy tales that they ignore reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You continuing to say so doesn't make it fact. Humans have been around for 6 million years, there was no world wide flood, and moses didn't exist. But keep believing in fables if it makes you all the happier 
