My latest understanding on the formation of the diversity of life

[Venatoris]

But I would say that the entire debate around this topic are surrounding areas that we can never be 100% sure. We can never be sure of the past that we do not have eye witness evidence for.

I hear this argument put forth quite often in creation/evolution debates but unfortunately it doesn't hold water in the real world. The first thing I learned in high school legal studies, "Eye witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable!". Creationists use this as a tactic to discredit evolution but don't seem to think it works against their own arguments. "You can't prove evolution unless you were there to witness it" but we shouldn't take the word of ancient civilizations(China, Egypt, etc.) that have recorded history predating the YEC timelines without mentioning any massive flood. Either you trust eye witnesses or you don't. No disrespect Christian Doc, just trying to help you out here. Choose your arguments carefully because the nit-picky people are always watching.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps you needs look up the definition of the word "slander"...

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[McBell]

Creationists use this as a tactic to discredit evolution but don't seem to think it works against their own arguments.

And it is not the only one either.
My personal favourite is the "Life has to come from life" argument.
Their first exception is God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous - I think you should reflect on how you have responded to my posts. You have contributed nothing to the discussions except for slander. Until you are more civilised I shall not respond to your posts. I think that I have been very patient and tolerant. It has diverted my attention from responding to the genuine posts on the various threads to responding to your tedious posts.

Therefore, good bye and may God bless you in your studies.

You don't have to be patient and tolerant of anything.

If you are a doctor who has interaction with people, you know that correcting someone's thinking or action is an act of compassion.

However, as I said above, your usage of TalkOrigins and AiG demonstrates your unwillingness to thoughtfully consider the matter.... because while you are a "doctor" you have shown yourself to be on the same level of critical thinking as a kid who cuts and pastes off of creationist websites.

 

[painted wolf]

I find the speed at which species would need to appear rather quick. However, I think that it is possible. I do understand why there is such fascination on how many animals could fit on the ark and the number of kinds. I do not think we can be 100% sure on these things.

So, you don't see any problem with species having to evolve at one or two a year? This would mean, essentially, that rats would have to give birth to a litter of mice spontaneously.

What mechanism could produce such rapid evolution and why don't we see it still today?

While we can't be 100% sure, we can get a good idea from the evidence. Creationism essentially says that evidence doesn't count if it doesn't fit the predetermined conclusion.

In other words, I think that every kind of animal was represented on the ark and saved from the flood. The reason we do not see every kind of animal that is in the fossil record living around us today is that they became extinct between the flood and now.

How do you define "kind"?
Where are all the bodies? There are a lot of extinct organism to account for.

Also, I would agree with the general consensus that AIG is not a good choice of source to be quoting from.

wa:do