Andrew Cummins on "Creationism"
with me...
 RT>> Fair enough. Then maybe you'd like to post what creationists *can* test
 RT>> for instead?
 AC> We could breed thousands of generations of fruit flies under conditions
 AC> of increased mutation and selection and see if we end up with anything
 AC> that is not a fruit fly.
And?
 AC>> The modern geography isn't what was flooded.
 RT>> Please provide evidence of this assertion.
 AC> Are you not aware that it can be observed that some mountains are still
 AC> "pushing up."?  Ever notice all the sedimentary rock on maintains. 
 AC> Either there was a lot more water, or those mountains were shorter. 
 AC> What do you think?
Most of the mountains are older than 6000 years so that would only leave the 
alternative.
The earth has a surface area of some 200 million square miles. In order to 
flood the earth to a depth of 6 miles you would need aprrox. 1000 million 
cubic miles of water. The volume of the oceans is estimated to be roughly one 
third of that at 308 million cubic miles.
Where is all the water now?
 AC>> Evolutionists don't merely believe that change happens, but that
 AC>> natural processes can lead to an indefinite increase in complexity --
 AC>> a
 RT>> It not only can but has. Look at the world around you. We have species
 RT>> ranging from micro-bacteria to blue whales. The evidence speaks for
 RT>> itself.
 AC> Evolutionists believe that some simple organism appeared and that this
 AC> simple organism gradually developed into more complex organisms, and
 AC> ultimately to humans.
And all the other animals too. However, AFAIA, evolution does not say that 
there was only increases in complexity throughout history. There are many 
living examples of declines in complexity. Such as cave fish losing their 
eyes for example.
 AC> Now, can you identify any clear example of the
 AC> complexity of any type of organism increasing in complexity?
Like a transitional form? I'll have to do some research.
However, this does not prove creationism even if I can't find a transitional 
form. We still have 600 million year old fossils and bones from a wide 
variety of animals that no longer exist that clearly refute a creation only 
6000 years ago.
 RT>> Scientists never use a theory to support anything. It is just that - a
 RT>> theory. As to empirical support, we have millions of bones and
 RT>> fossils. Where did they come from?
 AC> Mostly from animals that drowned.
We have fossils as old as 600 million years.
 RT>> As you'll inevitably just refuse to except any evolutionist argument,
 RT>> then maybe you'd like to provide some evidence for the creationist
 RT>> argument instead?
 AC> Not only do you refuse to except any Creationist argument,
Well, maybe when I get to see the scientific theory of creation I'll change 
my mind. I invite you to post it forthwith.
 AC> but if you're
 AC> the least like a typical Evolutionist, you want to censor Creationist
 AC> arguments so that no one will have the opportunity to except any
 AC> Creationist argument.
On the contrary, on several occasions I have invited you to post the 
scientific theory of creation and you yourself have declined. All you need to 
do is post it. Please, go ahead and post it.
    Relatif Tuinn
... "Bother," said Pooh, staring for hours at Rabbit's CD-ROM GIF library.
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------