Agreed, and as a YEC myself, they are constantly repeated because
documented macro-evolutionist answers are not forthcoming. Many erudite
opinions are expressed, but no documentation. Example: Drusophila has been
examined since 1903, first by Dr. Morgan in Woods Hole. After 15 years no
'mutation' occurred other than one eye appeared white. Then experiments
were done by design and all sorts of fruit flies were mutated. All
mutations, however, were at the most neutral and many proved lethal. To
date, as far as I know, no mutation upgrading of the fruit fly has ever
occurred. Fossil layer interpretation abounds here, as it does on most
chatrooms, but that is all it is, and predicated on the huge timespans
required by macro--evolution.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Bill Hamilton <hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com>
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: New Flood data
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 2:21 PM
>
> Art wrote
>
> >It is not science that does or does not support anything, it is
scientists,
> >and scientists are people, people who have ideas and opinions that
affect
> >their attitudes and results. Some of you seem to be afraid to allow
that
> >science can enable us to distinguish whether a deposit was produced over
> >millions of years in shallow water, or whether it was produced
> >catastrophically in deep water, etc. You should be urging more work and
> >supporting our results. Instead, I have to reinvent the wheel eveytime
we
> >open a discussion, because you are willing to accept at face value the
work
> >of secular geologists, committed to uniformitarinan views, but feel the
> >need to challenge everything I do that challenges them, even though it
is
> >done to the rigorous standards of secular science, and published in the
> >secular scientific literature. The discussions of the last few days
have
> >convinced me that standards are not applied equally, and that if someone
> >does scientific research that appears to support a global flood, even
> >abstrusely, it will be challenged by those who ought to want to see it,
> >uncritically applying references from uniformitarian sources. This is
> >indeed strange (and a bit amusing). And I do get some new ideas from
the
> >interactions, in any case.
> >
> I can't speak for Glenn, but when I occasionally explode at a young-earth
> creationist, it's not for doing what Art does. Art, in my nonexpert
> opinion, is genuinely trying to do what I have recommended to other
> young-earth creationists: do some real science and see if you can provide
> support for your views. However, what we usually hear from YEC's is
> repetitions of arguments that have been recycled ad infinitum. And that
> grates after a while.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Bill Hamilton
> Staff Research Engineer
> Chassis and Vehicle Systems
> GM R&D Center
> Warren, MI