KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses kinds of animals that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by Still small]

But we know that the system of peer review is biased,

Still small, you yourself and the groups you cite are guilty, to a far greater degree, of bias. The Statement-of-faith groups literally promise to contradict anything that contradicts their predetermined conclusion, their Word of God. I really don't get why you think you and your groups are somehow in the clear, as to the performance of research sans bias, when you and yours are all about bias right from the get to!
If mainstream science has a problem with peer review, that's a problem with mainstream science and peer review. It does NOT mean you get a pass with your own, and I have to call it, much bigger problem of not allowing yourselves to question the Word of God.

Here's a question to highlight how bad it is for you and your groups. It is a simple yes/no question. There are no other answers possible, so it is not a false dichotomy.

Will groups like ICR, AiG, Carm etc, ever allow/permit a scientist to publish on their websites or in their print publications, research, with their stamp of approval, that indicates and/or concludes things like there was no Adam/Eve, humans are the product of evolution, the universe is billions of years old?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 46 by Still small]

Firstly, the peer-review system, as is, is highly overrated whereas realistically it is often openly bias and consensus based as opposed to being objective

This is the standard theist approach ... bash science as being overrated and subject to bias. As riku pointed out it is the religious crowd who are far more guilty of this, by many orders of magnitude. When errors or discrepencies are found in the peer-reviewed literature they are pointed out by other scientists and challenged, corrected, or the problem remains open. There were several "proofs" of the 4-color theorem that passed peer review and made publication, and were later shown to be wrong. This was finally proven in 1976 and so far that has held up.

But no published papers are just taken at face value because they end up in a peer-reviewed journal ... everything is challenged and tested and this process never ends. Contrast that with creationists and the like whose goal is to twist science into whatever way is necessary to support their predetermined conclusions. These conclusions are the starting point, not arrived at by observation or experiment, and cannot be challenged. Then attempts are made to force science to agree with these predetermined conclusions. How you can compare this to legitimate science is beyond me.

As far as your reference to published in legitimate scientific journals, are you referring only to those journals which conform to your particular worldview or paradigm.

No ... I'm referring to the ones that accept papers from anyone whether they are religious or not, send them out for review to (multiple) other scientists with expertise in the field, then evaluate those reviews to decide if the paper warrants publication so that everyone in the scientific community, or otherwise, can have easy access to it and read it. Then any one of those people can throw darts at the paper's conclusions, send in comments or other papers challenging the results, etc. These comments may end up as new papers, corrections, errata, etc. That is the process. And you are not required to be a member of any institution, or have any particular religious beliefs, or have a certain skin color or age or anything else. This process is how peer reviewed science works, and why most if not all of the 1494 articles you referenced do not appear in legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is NOT because of any bias by the journals as you suggest (again, standard theist approach to this subject) ... it is because they can't pass review and fall short of being legitimate science.

This is a clear indication of your bias.

No ... you are categorizing as bias anything that doesn't jive with the biblical narrative that you believe. It has been shown, conclusively, without any doubt whatsoever, that humans have been around on this planet for far longer than 6000 years. This is not debatable from a science perspective. If you believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago, well that is purely a belief based on faith. It is not supported by the evidence that we do in fact have that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. There is no bias in believing this age for the earth ... it is derived from radiometric dating, and of course creationists go to great lengths to try and discredit radiometric dating purely because it contradicts their views of a young earth. Another example of starting with a conclusion (young earth), and then having the goal (under the guise of "science") of discrediting any kind of science that contradicts the conclusion that is started with.

I must commend you on your ability to speed read, I mean 1494 articles in what appears to be just over 24 hours

I didn't say I read all of those articles ... I said I randomly clicked on 10 of them and saw they weren't legitimate science papers. I'm not a biologist, I am a physical chemist, and in particular a spectroscopist. If there are any of these articles that involve those subjects I would like to see them, but I think I already know what they'd be like ... as always ... start with a conclusion derived from a holy book, then attempt to bash any modern science that contradicts that conclusion. That is (demonstrably) how the game works from your side.

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 10 by Donray]

Conservative American Christians still denying evolution, at this late date, even though every biologist, of any reputation, points to the immense amount of evidence supporting the fact that evolution takes place, does at least demonstrate that folks who have been conditioned to accept obsolete religions, are folks who certainly never allow outmoded thinking and ideas to evolve when new information is presented to them.

However, one of the very easiest things to prove is how unscientific, and just plain wrong, that the book of myths known as the King James Bible, actually is.

For example, in the book of Matthew, the tale is told that Satan brought Jesus to a high mountain peak in order to show Christ all of the kingdoms of the world that the Devil claimed he could give Jesus the ability to rule over. (What a genuinely stupid temptation for old Satan to try to offer to Jesus, anyway, since it was Christ's father, and not Satan, who supposedly created the very world that the Devil was pretending to be capable of giving Jesus the control of.) Gee, a lot of other people must have also noticed that the tale of Satan trying to tempt Jesus with a chance to rule over the exact same world that Christ's dad had created, is a truly absurd story in a book that certainly doesn't suffer from any shortage of ridiculous stories.


And we should bear in mind that at the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, the kingdoms of the Mayans & Aztecs existed in South America, as well as a kingdom in China, which was an ancient Chinese Dynasty, so NO mountain of any height could allow a person to see all of the world's kingdoms, unless the world WAS FLAT. Actually, at the time that the bible was written many people believed that our world was round, but was not the sphere that we now know it to be, but instead, many people of the biblical era thought that the world is round and flat, like a DVD or compact disc.

Anyway, even on a perfectly clear day, when a person is at the top of Mount Everest, the farthest that he or she is able to see is a distance of 75 miles, due to the curvature of the earth. Because beyond that 75 mile distance a person is just looking past the edge of the earth into space.

A bible believing Christian I know attempted to solve the problem of Christ being unable to use the view from a mountain to see all of the world's kingdoms, by my Christian friend introducing the false claim that the bible only identified the kingdoms of the Holy land as the places being shown to Christ. However, even if the scripture just limited the kingdoms being discussed to those in the so called Holy Land (which the bible doesn't do) even placing a tremendously high mountain in the Holy Land STILL WOULDN'T allow anyone to see all the kingdoms of that area of the world, at the time of Christ.

Because, for example, the city of Damascus is 500 miles from Egypt, so a mountain would have to be more than a HUNDRED MILES HIGH to make it possible for a viewer to just be able to see all of the kingdoms of the Holy Land. But there's just ONE MAJOR problem with the Devil taking Jesus to such a high place. Because that high of a mountain puts its summit in the vacuum of space, and since Jesus Christ had the body of a human being, he would have died instantly as his body literally exploded by Christ being in the vacuum of space.

Recently, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out that whoever was responsible for writing the last part of the New Testament, the book of Revelation, was obviously ignorant of the most basic fact about stars. Because the author of Revelation makes the absurd claim that when Christ is about to make his return in his 2nd Coming, the stars will fall upon the earth like rain. Now certainly, to the naked eye, those distant stars look about as small as large raindrops. But a reality that the writer of Revelation was obviously unaware of is that almost every star that we can see, is many hundreds of times larger than earth. So any of our Bible Believers who are waiting to see the stars fall upon our world, are folks who are DEFINITELY WAITING IN VAIN. Of course, there's nothing new about Christians WAITING in VAIN, since every generation of Christians has hoped to see Christ's return over the last 2 thousand years since little J was hung up to dry, by the Romans.

Man that boy is sure running VERY late!! I've known a bunch of Christians who had expected to witness Christ's second coming during their lifetimes, but now those folks are dead, and we still haven't seen neither hide, nor hair, of god's wayward son.

Even the apostle Paul believed that Christ's 2nd coming would take place during Paul's lifetime. And Jesus, himself, gave rise to such a belief, because several times in the New Testament, Jesus tells the people he is preaching to that before many of his listeners have reached the end of their lives Christ will return and establish his kingdom on earth.

Well, it's quite obvious that Jesus never kept his promise to establish his earthly kingdom in the 1st century.

One of the great men of the 20th Century, Dr Albert Schweitzer, was an ordained Lutheran minister, in addition to being a Nobel Prize winning man of medicine. Dr Schweitzer wrote a book about the historical Jesus that was so well respected that it was translated from its original German, into 22 other languages.

However, before Dr Schweitzer passed away in his 90s, he had stopped believing that Jesus was divine, or was the son of god. Because Dr Schweitzer stated that if Christ had actually been divine, then he would have never made his false promise that he would return to establish his kingdom on earth before many of the people he was preaching to had reached the end of their lives on earth. Yes, Dr Schweitzer was a far better man than yours truly, so if Christ's behavior did not seem to be that of a divine being to the good doctor, even in spite of the huge amount of knowledge of theology that Dr Schweitzer possessed, I'm certainly not someone who's going to argue with Albert Schweitzer's final conclusion about Jesus. I firmly agree with Dr Schweitzer that Jesus must have been a deluded preacher who was actually a lot less important than he thought he was. And BTW, Thomas Jefferson, while appreciating Christ's philosophy, did not believe in Christ's miracles such as raising the dead or curing the blind. Because Jefferson knew that the gospels were first written down decades after the death of Jesus, and the authors of those gospels did not know Jesus, or personally get to see any of the miracles that had been handed down through the years as stories that were part of the oral tradition of story telling.

As any good journalist in modern day America can tell us, news stories that are only a week old often undergo some major changes when other reporters try to repeat them. So Jefferson was certainly wise to doubt the tales of miracles which had just basically been rumors that were repeated and embellished by countless people before finally being written down many years after the events had supposedly taken place. And today, even most of the biblical scholars who are quite religious believe that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not with Jesus and never personally witnessed the miracles that they wrote about.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 46 by Still small]

But we know that the system of peer review is biased,

Still small, you yourself and the groups you cite are guilty, to a far greater degree, of bias. The Statement-of-faith groups literally promise to contradict anything that contradicts their predetermined conclusion, their Word of God. I really don't get why you think you and your groups are somehow in the clear, as to the performance of research sans bias, when you and yours are all about bias right from the get to!
If mainstream science has a problem with peer review, that's a problem with mainstream science and peer review. It does NOT mean you get a pass with your own, and I have to call it, much bigger problem of not allowing yourselves to question the Word of God.

Here's a question to highlight how bad it is for you and your groups. It is a simple yes/no question. There are no other answers possible, so it is not a false dichotomy.

Will groups like ICR, AiG, Carm etc, ever allow/permit a scientist to publish on their websites or in their print publications, research, with their stamp of approval, that indicates and/or concludes things like there was no Adam/Eve, humans are the product of evolution, the universe is billions of years old?

Probably not, except if it was written from a creationist worldview or paradigm and still able to justify the points you mention.
But that was not the point of that post 46. I believe I indicated that probably everyone holds to some sort of bias. My point was to indicate to DrNoGod that his constant appeal for peer reviewed publications was a poor, if not false standard as even naturalistic materialists (those quoted) acknowledge that it is unreliable as a measurement of absolute truth or even best possible explanation. Reliance on such a standard is tantamount to ad hominem attacks. One should read the article, check the authors credentials to assure his knowledge of the subject, then critique the actual material, not the source (being either author or publisher). For example, did you read either of the articles that I linked? They being this one on genetic clocks or this one on natural chemical origin of life. If so, what were the errors in the science which caused you to reject them? Or was your judgement clouded by your bias? Again, I admit, everyone has bias to some extent or another but its a matter of whether it is to an extent which causes you to reject the truth without justified cause. Or are you just rejecting it because it is against your predetermined conclusions?
Check either or both of the two articles and give me your critique of the actual material presented.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Mike Boone]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses kinds of animals that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

Donray, since you seem sure that a God created mankind, as well as all living things, I'd be very interested to see your explanation of why God obviously fails to protect his own children, human beings, since the prime duty of any father is to protect his own children.

An overriding reason why I'm a non-believer in God is simply because no Supreme Being who could be defined as being Good, in any sense of the word, could watch a helpless child or woman (or even a man) being raped and tortured, and maybe murdered, without that God taking his own action to protect the human who was being tortured.

It's obvious that if I was walking through a forest, and came upon a clearing where I saw the horror of a helpless man, woman, or child being raped, and though I was armed with a loaded gun, instead of acting to end the horror, I just hid behind a tree and watched it go on for an hour, my inaction would not only define me as being an awful human being, but if my behavior became known to others, I'd be likely to be sent to the same prison where the rapist would go, if he was caught.

Now surely, in a world of 7 billion people, any God that existed, would literally be seeing thousands of helpless children, as well as adults, being raped and tortured every day. But though an All-Powerful God could obviously paralyze, or otherwise disable, the people committing such crimes to protect their victims, HERE IN THE REAL WORLD there's obviously NO God who does that! This PROVES that if the Christian God, or ANY God, for that matter, REALLY EXISTS, the behavior of SUCH a God DOESN'T EVEN RISE UP to the LEVEL of that EXHIBITED by any DECENT human being. Because any decent human would DEFINITELY put a stop to rape and torture, if he possibly could.

Any God who just watches & ALLOWS helpless men, women, or children, to be raped, HAS TO BE a God who's NO BETTER than a rapist, or a child molester, himself.

I'd like to see anyone attempt to debate my statements, but sadly, I'm quite confident that there are Christians who'll defend their God by bringing up extraneous info & Bible Quotes, that REFUSE TO DEAL DIRECTLY with my point, just so that such Christians can feel comfortable in believing that they've just gotten their God off of the hook.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 54 by Still small]

Probably not, except if it was written from a creationist worldview or paradigm and still able to justify the points you mention.

Try absolutely not. According to the Statement of Faith page on AiG for example
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
"Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation."

Or from ICR
https://www.icr.org/tenets
"The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."
"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. "

If ICR or AiG were to fund a scientist to do research, to find out how old the Earth might be or maybe to see how humans were formed and how long ago...that scientist's work would be outright rejected, if he posited that humans evolved a few million years ago, or that the earth formed over the course of tens of millions of years a few billion years ago. If that scientist comes back after a year holding volumes of pages detailing his research and says the earth is billions of years old...that research cannot and would not go up on either ICR or AiG, or be printed in their magazines.
Why would ICR or AiG publish it? That man's work contradicts what they have already declared to be true. Look at the writing in red from ICR. Theories of evolution are false, they declare. And that's it for them. They just declare it.

For example, did you read either of the articles that I linked? They being this one on genetic clocks or this one on natural chemical origin of life.

No. The genetic clocks one is from creation.com, who have a Statement of Faith, so I automatically will not read articles from such people. It's a personal rule for myself, and one I wish others would take. There's no point in reading what is labelled research, if its from people who admit to having a predetermined conclusion before they've even gone out to do their research.
As for the "origin of life", IDEA do admit to having a major Christian bias. At least they're upfront about it. I notice they don't seem to have Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists doing research...or even atheists. They talk a great deal about trying to separate religion from science...but when all of their board members (I checked as many as I could) are Christians, and the topic of ID is so closely related to religion...any credibility in my eyes goes out the window.

I believe I indicated that probably everyone holds to some sort of bias. My point was to indicate to DrNoGod that his constant appeal for peer reviewed publications was a poor, if not false standard as even naturalistic materialists (those quoted) acknowledge that it is unreliable as a measurement of absolute truth or even best possible explanation.

Be that as it may, it still does not absolve you of citing sites, groups, publications that are guilty of far greater "sins".

Or was your judgement clouded by your bias?

Why is it you link to sites like ICR, or the Discovery Institute, who are guilty of bias but to a greater degree than anyone else? If you're going to criticise me or anyone else about our bias, best make sure you're not ignoring yourself. If you don't look at your own biases, what you say here on this site comes across as massively hypocritical.

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Answers in Genesis and its CEO, Ken Ham, are a very bad joke.

At Mr Ham's Creation Museum visitors used to encounter an anti-evolution display which made the claim that since evolution maintains that man evolved from lower animals, then people who accept evolution as being true, are more likely than those who don't, to behave like animals, by exhibiting higher levels of anti-human behavior, like committing violent crime at higher rates than critics of evolution, and also having higher rates of teen pregnancy, and drug abuse.

But the only problem with Ham's theory that a belief in evolution causes people to behave more like animals, is that IT'S EXACTLY WRONG! Because America's Jewish and Hindu citizens ACCEPT evolution at the HIGHEST rates among America's demographic groups, and yet, American Jews & Hindus commit violent crimes and experience teen pregnancies, at rates that are much lower than those seen among America's Baptists. And those rates aren't lower because of the fact that the Jewish and Hindu populations are so much smaller, because such rates are calculated per 100,000 people, so that allows true apples to apples comparisons to be made between different demographic groups. Also, Jews and Hindus are considerably less prone, than Baptists are, to get involved in drug abuse. Gee, maybe if more Baptists learned to accept evolution, that group of Americans wouldn't be as prone to certain social ills, as Baptists now seem to be. Actually, I was just being a little facetious with that last sentence, because Jews and Hindus basically tend to suffer LESS from those social and societal ills than Baptists do, because our Jewish and Hindu citizens tend to be much more devoted and dedicated, than most Baptists, to getting excellent educations. Having grown up with many Jewish friends, I always saw how, to them, studying hard in school was literally like a religion to them. In fact, most of the Jews who I grew up with in Long Island, New York, put a MUCH higher priority on their schooling, than they did on the religion of Abraham.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 55 by Mike Boone]

There is no gods so I don't know how you determined I could speak for a god?
I am trying to find out what Christians want to replace Evolution with? They want to say "Kinds and Adaptation" but cannot logical define this theory of theirs.

Nothing that the "Small Minded Guy" is doing in a lot of the posts defines his creation view. He does not know what kinds God created or that were on the ark. He cannot use fossil evidence to support his view. The only thing he can do is like most Christians knock Evolution.

Small minded people need to belive in GOD because their life must be so miserable that they can only look forward to death and heaven. And they cannot even logical discuss what heaven is like. nothing about and cannot logical debate. They know nothing of there god, heaven nor hell. All Christians use the who can understand the ways of GOD as their excuses to not respond to questions.

Notice that Small Mind uses this a lot.

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 58 by Donray]

Donray, my apologies for misinterpreting a post you wrote, that caused me to think that you're a believer, as I probably made the mistake of mixing up a statement that your post quoted, by someone else, with what you actually think.

But recently, I've learned to have the ability to summarize my own thoughts concerning people's claims about the existence of a god, or gods, in a fairly brief fashion.

I start by saying to folks that no one can prove a negative, like a god not existing, anymore than I can prove that flying elephants do not exist anywhere in the universe.

But what IS EASY TO PROVE is that if an all-powerful god who observes human events would exist, HE, SHE, or IT, would have to be no damned good, and actually be EVIL.

Scientist Sam Harris probably said it best. He noted that with all of the suffering in the Nazi death camps, that went on for years, including horrible experiments performed on little children as if they were no more than laboratory rats, one MUST CHOOSE among 3 possibilities to explain why a god would allow those years of suffering while hearing millions of prayers for god to end it. And THOSE 3 CHOICES ARE 1. Those prayers went unanswered because NO god Exists. 2. Those prayers went unanswered because a god exists, but was powerless to stop the Holocaust, meaning that god is impotent. Or 3. The prayers went unanswered because a powerful god with the ability to end the needless suffering, didn't care to do so, meaning that such a god is EVIL.

So folks, those are our 3 choices, in that there's either NO god, there's an IMPOTENT god, or the WORST possibility of all, is that a POWERFUL god EXISTS, but that god lacks the grace, love, or even basic mercy, to be EVIL enough to have MERELY OBSERVED the plight of the small children who suffered in Hitler's Holocaust, while not having wanted to take easy action (for a god) that would have immediately stopped such suffering.

Yes, sorry my Christian friends, because the reality of that awful Holocaust SIMPLY DOESN'T Allow for the REALITY of a MERCIFUL or LOVING god. No good FATHER could just stand by, and KEEP WATCHING, as the Holocaust kept torturing children.

And sometime, in another post, when it's not so late, I'll discuss how the fact that Germany was 95% Christian in Hitler's time, was a great help to him in achieving the murder of 6 million Jews. But let me just say now that the HATEFUL anti-Jewish writings of German churchman, Martin Luther, who FOUNDED Protestant Christianity, were writings that the Nazis often quoted to inflame anti-Jewish hatred.

[Still small]

No, it's the only way they can fulfill what it is they say they set out to do. They call this book (Holy Bible) the 'Word of God' and describe it as infallible. That's their predetermined, presupposed conclusion.
They then say that this book is superior to any and all evidence gathered ,whether gathered in the past or yet to be gathered in the future, or research conducted. They say they are commanded to refute false doctrines,
whatever else might contradict the word of God,.

Guess what might happen, might just happen, if they come across some piece of evidence, or conduct research that indicates that what they call the Word of God is false?
Why...they'll discard it. Omit it. Delete it. Distort it. If they didn't do any of those three things, then they might just do as other scientists do, or other historians, and have to put up on their website some sort of research that indicates for example...that there was no literal Adam and Eve.
And this is why I cannot trust Statement-of-Faithers. They literally promise not to put up research that contradicts their predetermined conclusion.

Your claim was that these publications literally promised to do so which is false. You may assume and/or extrapolate it to mean such but there was no actual literal promise. (You do know what the word literally or literal means, dont you?) If they come across research that appears to contradict their worldview, they tend to examine the research, look at the actual evidence to determine whether it is able to be interpreted, without contradiction, from their standpoint. Surely you realise that ALL evidence and results are interpreted according to ones worldview or paradigm. Possibly, if their current understanding doesnt bring about a reasonable understanding, they may put it down as a presently unanswered question.

Rikuoamero, tell me, why do you think these authors write as they do? They have studied for years to gain, in many cases, their PhDs. Done years of research in their particular field, all for what? Do you think they are deliberately lying in their papers when written from a Creationist world view? I mean, it certainly doesnt get them any sort of real research grants. They are often mocked and ridiculed by naturalistic materialists in their fields, it gains them no kudos except from a very small audience. No prestigious departmental positions in elite colleges or universities. Why is it, do you think, that they are so adamant about their positions? Its not because thats how they were raised as many didnt become Christians until during or after college. And many didnt come to a Creationist worldview until some time after that. Im serious, Id like to know what it is YOU think they have to gain or are trying to achieve by deliberately trying to mislead people? It certainly isnt to seek praise as they are constantly directing it to a higher Authority. They are obviously of reasonable intelligence. Seriously, why is it that you think they do it? Why, do you think, they are so willing to go against the consensus? And what do you think they are trying to gain?

Have a good day!
Still small