First of all, I am not of closed mind as implied by some. Instead I am of open mind, in fact I consider myself to be open to everything. Unfortunately, I am simply one who must disassemble to understand. You name the item, I've probably taken one apart, studied it, learned about it, then attempted to put it all together. What I know of mechanical and electrical systems is not just what I have been taught, but what I have observed, although I love to be taught (hence me being on this forum).
When I was a young lad, and going to school, one topic that interested me was the theory of plate tectonics. This is the theory that the earth's crust is not one solid piece, but instead is comprised of separate plates that move independent of each other. The theory was that the movement of these plates were responsible for the volcanoes, and the earthquakes, and the mountain ranges, and the ability for animals and humans to traverse the world. Imagine my surprise when ten years later, reading my youngest brothers textbook, that this was now considered factual. Now, of course, with satellites, measurement of the movement is documented.
The geologic column was a theory of early geologists that the layers of various sediment deposits could define the age of the material, by their location in the strata layers. It also was a belief that this layer, which took millions of years to occur, could define the age of various fossils, based on the layer that they were found in. In the early 80's creationists used the recent (at the time) fact that because this theoretical model was not accurate (from analysis by geologists) to call into question the evolution of the earth. They argues that areas that did not conform to the model instead "proved" that the timelines geologists previously assumed was flawed, and therefore extrapolated that to fit with their "young earth" theory. Currently, geologists and biologists use various types of "measurements" to date both organic and non-organic materials. Whether it is Carbon-14 or electron spin resonance (for organic) or Isotope dating (using measurable radioactive decay properties) on non-organic material, the concept of the geological column is not a currently accepted model. However, the current methods of measurement "do" support the "old earth" model.
Polystrate fossils are simply fossils (best known examples are trees), that extend through various layers of sediment. To assume that all layers of sediment occurred equally in depth at all locations around this planet is absurd. Even looking at events that occur today, with volcanic activity, flooding, and earthquakes, the face of the planet, and the deposits of material on it are in a constant state of evolution. One hundred feet of trees that existed along the shores of Lake Winnipeg (and the corresponding clams, crayfish and rotting fish) are now somewhere in the strata of the lakebed due to high water levels 40 years ago. I'm sure if you compared the depth of them to the "average strata deposit per year", they would measure as having been there for a few thousand years.
"Symbiosis is a close ecological relationship between the individuals of two (or more) different species. Sometimes a symbiotic relationship benefits both species, sometimes one species benefits at the other's expense, and in other cases neither species benefits.
Ecologists use a different term for each type of symbiotic relationship:
Mutualism -- both species benefit
Commensalism -- one species benefits, the other is unaffected
Parasitism -- one species benefits, the other is harmed
Competition -- neither species benefits
Neutralism -- both species are unaffected"
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent591k/symbiosis.html
How one can stretch a symbiotic relationship to say it cannot evolve is unbelievable. Symbiosis is a perfect example for evolution. If one species finds an advantage in being in proximity to the other - whether for food or protection, and by being in proximity to that species it increases their chance and/or ease of survival, it is natural for it to occur. We all tend to gravitate to that which makes life easier. I use cats to kill mice, because they are better at it. The cat comes home because I feed it. In the wild, some relationships are much more specific of course, but why would my kids search out another animal by trying them all to catch the mice, when the cat is living in the house? Or forage in the woods for food, when the refrigerator is in the kitchen? I did not invent the computer, or the language I am using, yet my world today is more complex in nature than that of my parents, and the same for them to their parents.
Intelligent design routinely uses the watchmaker analogy to illustrate that a complex design must come from a more intelligent creator. First off, if this analogy is taken to it's word, then the ultimate creator, obviously more complex than us, must have have been precluded by one even more intelligent and complex.
Secondly, the watch design is the accumulation of complex inventions and processes. First the ability to create fire, then to find metals in minerals, then to smelt these out; the understanding of fulcrums, gears, gear reduction, the process of manufacturing the parts, the process of organizing and assembling these parts, the understanding of time. These were not the invention of one individual, but the culmination of knowledge and pratices over a long period of time. All that we can do now is based on our ability to not have to learn everything we as humans have ever known. We can be taught. Without the cumulation of knowledge, the Bible stories would still be passed orally, not printed mechanically.
My dog is a herder. This did not come naturally, it was bred into him. I own no sheep, yet his herding insticts do show up periodically. Intelligent design says that such perfection and organization is impossible without a designer. Why? Molecular structures are perfect, compounds form in organized structures (all salt is the same structurally). Responses to environment shapes structure. My child had no concept of structural mechanics, or a degree in engineering, but by three knew that if she stacked her blocks in a single column as opposed to a pyramid, they were more likely to fall.
If the young earth theory is true, why do current creationist theologians profess that the creation took 2,000 years (from 6000-4000BC) when it is written that it took 7?
If the great flood is as described, then how did one man gather and keep two of each of the 1.5 million species (some taxonomists estimate the actual value to be up to 100,000,000) in a single vessel, and why and how are they so widespread around the world? How can the diversity of race and culture be explained in a mere 4,000 years? Please dont use the tower of babel story, please use science. Many cultures such as the Chines have calendars dating back over 5,000 years.
rotest:
