Bolshevik

Yep. No Faith needed. Now back to things that interesting. Back in Post #18 this animal was brought up as part of the hybrid discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babirusa There was confusion as to what type of animal it was related to. Since it started breeding with pigs, it obvious that it belongs with other swine. Linnaean taxonomy is a way of organizing all life into a "Family tree". As more species are found, extinct and extant, the more complicated the "Family Tree" becomes. This tree is also full of hypothetical branches to help connect everything under evolutionary theory. These branches (and limbs and twigs) are constantly being rearranged to "fit". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy This swine IMO suggests that the creation theory is a much simpler way of organizing things. Figure out all the animal types, then simply have individual "family trees" for each type. New species should fit under an obvious animal group, and also should be expected to be able to breed with the rest in that tree. i.e. wooly mammoths, mastadons, African and asian elephants would all be expected to interbreed. (if you had them available.) Trying to find how elephants are related to sea cows and manatees is over complicating matters.

I've discussed this on an earlier thread. (gravity and such) You mentioned Dawkins. All I see in him and others is more religion. Something is wrong with the current persuasion. I just want to find what it is.

I would probably toss my bible out. I don't read it anyway. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Poly_a_tail the prof explained that something like poly-As could work on DNA, adding new info. Of course, these are just adenine nucleotides, so mutations would have to occur. And in addition to that, useful ones, resulting in new proteins. New proteins would result to help bring new traits. This quite a stretch, and considering all "on-off" swithes in the sequence, the initiating protein, and the web of communication, to me, this is just wishful thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil Living fossils are organisms which are found in the fossil record, sometimes many millions of years ago, yet are still around today, and seem unchanged. Evolutionists say they were simply isolated in places and didn't need to change, or evolve. This could also suggest though that all organism types were around before the flood, some killed in the flood and following catastrophe's, and survived(in the ark or in the water). (Some being killed in the flood and continent division were fossilized).

I gave just one example. This is a common trend. Therefore I cannot accept the theory of evolution as absolute. Go see the museum.

Uh . . . no, I doubt that, since his lab is labeled ". . . Evolution . . ." He and the other profs spent a lot of time explaining amazing things about molecular biology/genetics of cells. Amazing things. Truly amazing. But then they'd do something strange. They'd take a known mechanism, (like poly-A tails, http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Poly_a_tail) and then say something like "Now, take this mechanism, and imagine such and such a situation . . . maybe . . . possibly . . .if there were a mechanism maybe. . .and such and such happened by chance. . . could result in new DNA sequences . . . new traits . . . evolution." Hello??? No. I won't follow that reasoning.

I know the fields I study. I believed in evolution before I doubted it. I argued the "Why can't there be both evolution and the Bible" for a time. I know what I see. The more I see, the less I'm covinced of evolution. There are a number of books by non-evolution atheists, but I don't know of a museum run by them. I find this creation museum of great interest. It seems to me most people are completely ignorant of both sides of the argument(s). They just assume one or the other to be true. IMO This museum made a lot of good arguments that need to be looked into. Both this museum and the evolutionists can be wrong. Can they not?

You wanna talk biology? I'm still waiting on that beneficial protein due to random mutation. That's what I'm telling you. Tools found in Cretaceous rock. Soft tissue and blood cells of T-rex uncovered (by evolutionists I believe) This is not the only creation museum. Just the newest. No, they have much more evidence than on layer of coal. Again, not the only one of its kind. Macro-Evolution is not science. It is a shame to science. All new discoveries are interpreted in the "light of evolution". It nothing but circular-reasoning.

I'm not sure what to teach my kids either. "Stay away from New Knoxville, its full of corn-husking leeches" is one thing I may tell them.

Don't a lot of museums display the ancient gods of Egypt, Greece, and Babylon? Does anyone have a problem with this? So this new museum displays the record of Genesis, along with explainations by real scientists about why we see what we see. There was an incredible amount of food for thought.

Now here, aren't you just giving more credibility to the idea that there was an ark and flood?

There was plenty of explanations at the museum to show that a prior post in this thread is nonsense. There were photos of layers of coal. They are flat on the top and bottom. There are perfect layer of a sediment dividing it. There are fossils that cut through the layers. Up and down. Cutting through supposedly millions of years. The sedimentary layers were caused by a global flood. You'll have to see at the museum. As far as the ark, yes, I'm sure they were working hard to haul off poop. Seems like a moot point.

IMO Anyone who believes evolution is just as much a religious nut. Where's the proof? Evolution is B.S. You don't believe God or gods. Are you offering an alternative view? Are we genetically designed by aliens? Is that what you're saying?

Here's an example of going back even to the family level http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-swine.htm Mendel's Law sat on Darwin's desk, but Darwin never opened it. It's the deeper understanding of molecular genetics that got me to doubt the evolution idea. Seeing how complicated life is at the molecular level, yet so perfect. And so much going on. The explainations evolutionists give here at the University are nothing more that ideas themselves. Philosophy. Plus, there's so much left to be discovered. Evolution, all life descending from a common ancestor, has not been proven.

Some believe (evolutionists included) that gorillas and chimpanzees can interbreed. There are rumors of a new species of ape living in the Congo. Skulls of this ape reveal it has both gorilla and chimpanzee qualities. It is possible that the skeletons of hominids found in the fossil record, like Lucy, are relatives of modern apes. They were wiped out by the flood, or sometime after. Ape representatives on the ark gave rise to the apes we see today. Scientists debate about what happened to Neanderthals. Some (including evolutionists) believe they interbred with humans are were simply absorbed into our modern population. (Therefore some of us carry pieces of the genetic code of what were once Neanderthals). Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man, and other human-like skeletons could simply just be different humans. Take a look around and notice how varied modern humans are. It is possible that humans, prior to the flood, had the genetic ability to be even more varied. (The giants in genesis could have very well been just that, giant humans. Just like there were giant sloths, giant beavers, giant camels, giant you-name-it, as recorded in the fossil record.) If humans could be found to have the ability to interbreed with apes, there might be a problem with this ark and flood idea . . . List of hominid fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossils (edited for spelling)

More hybrids: http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-cats.htm

WW, Are we talking about people with real jobs, who work hard, providing a real service that actually helps people (or possibly provides an actual paycheck)? Or are we talking about someone who sits up all night waiting to receive divine revelation that will help protect the movement of the Omnipotent's Word from drunk teenagers with paintball guns?

An important part of the hybrid idea: http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9801/20/cama.ap/ note how long evolutionists say the evolution of camels and llamas has been occurring. Yet they can still interbreed to produce viable offspring. (Important: remember that llamas come from south America and camels from Africa or the middle east.) The wide variety of dogs we see today only took 100-300 years to develop from a relatively few varieties (with human intervention of course). The "Cama" suggests millions of years, as required by evolutionary theory, are completely unnecessary. (I didn't notice human intervention mentioned at the museum, I may have missed it. Human intervention could very well have played a part in the diversity of the wild species we see today, as well as geographic location.) BTW: Marsupials and their unique presence in Australia (and the Americas) was discussed in the museum. Something to do with their ability to travel vs. placental mammals. They simply got places faster after the ark landed. (edited for spelling)

There was a variety of topics covered at the museum. If you liked the book "The Two Babylons" (or at least some of the content) the were topics discussed more simply at the museum. One was human language. Human languages can be said to have "evolved" from other languages. i.e. The romance languages from latin. They discussed that if you trace the origins of languages back it can be shown that a number of languages suddenly appeared at the time of the Tower of Babel. edited for grammer

I've heard of bottlenose dolphins and false killer whale hybrids. I don't see why killer whales couldn't breed with dolphins. That must've been cool to see.

There is a lot to go through. We spent about 4-5 hours there and didn't see everything. One thing I'm focusing on is hybrid animals. The idea is that one animal type was made, and the diversity we see today are descendents of that type. (Flows along with evolution theory yes.) An animal type would have at first diversified into a number of species, but then these were all wiped out by the flood. A representative pair(s) would have survived on the ark, diversifying again once the flood receded. This would account for species in the fossil record not found today, but that are very similar to species found today. As far as the Ark and flood, (to be brief). Scale models were shown in comparison to humans, elephants, giraffes, and yes, dinosaurs. The ark was big enough. A global flood was postulated to account for current geography an geology. Current events like Mount St. Helens erruption were used to explain ideas. (The tsunamil near indonesia was not mention though it would have been a great example.) Reasoning was given for much phenomena. Including the Grand Canyon, ice cap layers, why certain fossils are found in certain layers etc etc. There were some fossils, although as they say "This exhibit is still evolving". Impressions and replicas of famous fossils such as the German archeopteryx and "Lucy" were on display. They had a huge whoolly rhinocerous skeleton. There was a lot. Like I said, a return visit is needed.

I enjoyed the museum Garth. My wife and I plan to return in a month or two. Lots of info. Have you seen the movie Napolean Dynomite? There was a scene where he talks about the "liger", half lion-half tiger. I thought he was just being a dork. Apparantly, they do exist. There's one in Reno, NV. There's also big cats called "tigons".

In his defense, he worked the night shift for 8 years. That'll make anyone cranky and zombie-like. chasing blondes was he? Dude has three daughters. wonder if he's suddenly and ironically changed his ways.

He Lives! He lives! Frankenstein lives today . . .

I wouldn't read too much into the microphones. I think I've seen both types be used by both sexes. twi is good at degrading everyone. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=14332