I registered just so I could post in this thread. It\'s nothing I haven\'t seen before, but it seems the general population of the thread isn\'t too familiar with the enormously tired arguments Clowd\'s been posting.
Clowd, you\'ve been saying you\'ve \'Proved\' creation by posting \'facts.\'
Your \'facts\' consist of bible passages and critiques of evolution using modern-day animals that you see as irreducibly complex.
If you want to prove creation, you do so by showing evidence, from multiple sources, that real-world observations concur with the Creation hypothesis. Criticizing evolution does not prove creation any more than criticizing classical music proves \'N-Sync makes the best music ever made.
You claim Moses wrote the Old Testament--wrong. The authors of the OT are unnamed (well, apart from \'God\') and are generally accepted as stories passed down verbally until written down several thousand years ago. Moses lead the slaves out of Egypt, got God to ruin the nation, recieved the commandments, and lead the Jews around the desert slaughtering pretty much every tribe they came across.
You claim Moses wrote down the \'correct\' order of creation of various Earth and universe features. Tell me, then, why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different orders of creation. Tell me, then, how light can exist without the sun and stars. Tell me, then, how day and night can exist without Earth, the sun, or stars. Tell me, then, how plants can exist without the sun.
You claim the Bible\'s correct because it mentions the Earth hanging in emptiness and that it\'s round. The Bible also mentions corners of the Earth, pillars that support the Earth, and that the Earth is suspended in Firmament along with the rest of creation.
I don\'t feel like doing any more Bible stuff, so I\'ll go to the evolution stuff now.
Care to tell me
which scientists are leaning towards a dinosaur-extinguishing flood? Perhaps with references? Or is this just another attempt to make Noah\'s Flood fit into the Earth\'s history?
You seem to misunderstand evolution like the vast majority of all anti-evolution creationists. You seem to think that evolution is a sudden, random process when it\'s anything but. It\'s an enormously slow, progressive process. Mutations tend to be random, yes, but natural selection is the force behind evolution, and it\'s decidedly non-random.
Giraffes, for example. As their necks enlongated throughout the eons (as precursors who could reach higher for food tended to survive better), their hearts grew stronger to pump the blood higher (the ones whose hearts didn\'t, didn\'t make it to adulthood). Soon (in gelogic terms), blood pressure and neck lengths were at a tenuous crossroads. Percursors with longer necks could get more food, but were at more risk of brain damage when their heads were down. Those with the longest necks thus tended to die before they could breed. This became a selection force. Then, there was a mutation. A precursor with some strong valves and a somewhat longer neck was born. This one could reach more food, and wasn\'t at a risk to die from ruptured blood vessels. The traits happened to be heritable, and its children got the long necks and valves. It became self-reinforcing. Nature favored giraffes with longer necks and strong valves.
The same goes for woodpeckers. Some precursor was hatched that could get into tree bark more easily than its peers to get at food. Stronger neck muscles, tougher beak, whatever. The traits were heritable. Its offspring got the stronger necks and beaks.
The eye? Well, seeing as how the eye\'s evolved from scratch many times on this world, and the eye currently exists at virtually all stages of the proposed evolution of the eye, it\'s certainly not irreducibly complex. "Half an eye" (I\'ll assume it\'s a small cup with some refractive fluid in it, without a lens or iris) is significantly better than a light sensitive patch or no eye at all.
Animals, right now, have eyes ranging from light-sensitive patches (Iguanas, for example) to position-sensing cups (starfish) to high-focus eyeballs (the majority of mammals and birds). Computer models have been made, showing rapid (in geologic terms) evolution of a modern eye from a light-sensitive patch with tiny, incremental steps, assuming that any enhancement of clarity is a positive mutation. Evolution of vision is hugely self-enforcing, as it\'s a distinct advantage to virtually anything that develops it.
And, just for the hell of it:
Evolution Evidence vs Creation Evidence
