evolution vs. creationism

[Beckys_Mom]

Ummmm, no that's not what I believe. I believe those that don't accept attonement through Jesus Christ will continue to be separated from God and condemn themselves to Hell. Christians aren't immune from sinning.

Well either way, I was just trying to sum it up quickest way possible

there is no harm in what you want to believe WWF....don't get me wrong ....but when you tell IE (pretend)..non believer, that they are doomed...<--that looks as though you are stating actual fact

If you say - I believe you are doomed <--well its understandable, cuz you stated its just what you believe...so how can anyone dispute you??

Just trying to gather up some understanding..

Take this topic for example...my belief is that God is responcible for all that has evolved ,<--a lil bit from what Darwin has said...only because I brought God into it..but you see, thats only what I personally believe....reason being, is because, I believe God does in fact exist, but can view evolution too, and see how it makes sense in a way it does to me .....BUT i don't want or care if anyone doesnt believe me, cuz I know that I was the one that came up with that idea myself, so it wouldn't bother me if anyone said I believe you are wrong BM <--fair enough, only because I cannot prove it

[WalkingWithFire]

Well either way, I was just trying to sum it up quickest way possible

there is no harm in what you want to believe WWF....don't get me wrong ....but when you tell IE (pretend)..non believer, that they are doomed...<--that looks as though you are stating actual fact

If you say - I believe you are doomed <--well its understandable, cuz you stated its just what you believe...so how can anyone dispute you??

Just trying to gather up some understanding..

Take this topic for example...my belief is that God is responcible for all that has evolved ,<--a lil bit from what Darwin has said...only because I brought God into it..but you see, thats only what I personally believe....reason being, is because, I believe God does in fact exist, but can view evolution too, and see how it makes sense in a way it does to me .....BUT i don't want or care if anyone doesnt believe me, cuz I know that I was the one that came up with that idea myself, so it wouldn't bother me if anyone said I believe you are wrong BM <--fair enough, only because I cannot prove it

I've never told anybody that they're doomed.

[Amalgamut]

Even if a "believer" says you are "doomed" why does it bother the skeptic so much?

Is it not the same when the skeptic says (or almost always thinks) that the believer is stupid for agreeing with creationism?

Edited August 31, 2007 by Amalgamut

[DogsHead]

I have yet to see an evolutionist make a compelling argument for his/her beliefs.

You should visit (and read) Talk Origins

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory

Every case an evolutionist has made has been refuted.

Evidence for this?

Your argument about intelligent design not occurring because we could be more "intelligently conceived" is lacking, because it doesn't matter what we see as more intelligent. God obviously created us the way He wanted us to be created, which includes certain limitations.

Circular argument. Sorry, but this doesn't wash.

If you want to decrease the potential of choking to death, use some common sense and chew your food better. Also, don't shove your fingers up your nose while keeping your mouth closed.

This has nothing at all to do with the argument presented in the YT clip.

I know we were created because I know the Creator personally.

Appeal to Authority (Logical fallacy)

Perhaps you could ask him/her (how do you know this being is a male?) to present his/her arguments here?

He has spoken to me verbally and He communicates with me quite often. From what I've gotten to know of the Creator is that He is different in some ways than I expected Him to be. He is loving, yet He is also wrathful if you are doing the wrong thing.

Hey, she sounds just like me!

Everything He does is perfect,

Apart, obviously, from not knowing what to do about humans and their free will...

whether we see it as perfect or not. It is not our choice and He has made that clear to me.

It would seem that a perfect being would not need to become wrathful, as you stated above, as everything is going according to plan, n'est pa?

[jdlsmith]

I have heard both sides of the evolution/creation debate quite a bit...

An interesting thing is that evolution proponents are always saying "use science" and that creationists are not using science. The evolutionists then go about using faith and a religious system instead of science.

Science is observation. It is clear facts.

The fact that we have never witnessed any aspect of macro evolution is completely irrelevant to evolutionists, because they are using a religion...

The fact that we have tremendous support for a global flood due to huge masses of biological matter located in pockets all over the earth is not important, because their view is religious in nature.

The fact that we've seen rocks and canyons that according to evolutionary theory would take millions of years to form, form in a decade on Mt St Helens is irrelevant to the evolutionist.

The fact that we constantly see devolution, not evolution, rather a lessening of genetic diversity, is not important, because evolution is a religious belief.

The fact that the big bang would produce galaxies all moving AWAY from each other, yet we see galaxies colliding, is not important because evolution doesn't need facts, it needs believers.

There are many more reasons to doubt evolution and the 'big bang', but these are just a few off the top of my head... any ideas you'd specifically like me to refute? Write them out yourself... don't copy them from somebody else's website, and I'll refute them individually for you...

JS

[DogsHead]

I have heard both sides of the evolution/creation debate quite a bit...

An interesting thing is that evolution proponents are always saying "use science" and that creationists are not using science. The evolutionists then go about using faith and a religious system instead of science.

Your opinion, I believe - unless you have evidence?

Science is observation. It is clear facts.

Correct

The fact that we have never witnessed any aspect of macro evolution is completely irrelevant to evolutionists, because they are using a religion...

Wrong. See This page

Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).

The fact that we have tremendous support for a global flood due to huge masses of biological matter located in pockets all over the earth is not important, because their view is religious in nature.

There is no evidence to support a global flood. None. And, I might add plenty of evidence against it.

The fact that we've seen rocks and canyons that according to evolutionary theory would take millions of years to form, form in a decade on Mt St Helens is irrelevant to the evolutionist.

Wow, that's a new one. Have you ever asked a geologist to back that statement up?

The fact that we constantly see devolution, not evolution, rather a lessening of genetic diversity, is not important, because evolution is a religious belief.

Hogwash.

The fact that the big bang would produce galaxies all moving AWAY from each other, yet we see galaxies colliding, is not important because evolution doesn't need facts, it needs believers.

Again, rubbish. You do not understand Universal expansion

There are many more reasons to doubt evolution and the 'big bang', but these are just a few off the top of my head... any ideas you'd specifically like me to refute? Write them out yourself... don't copy them from somebody else's website, and I'll refute them individually for you...

The idea, JS, is to support the statements YOU make. It is not up to somebody else to refute your argument - the burden of proof fall squarely on the shoulers of those disputing accepted theory.

JS

[camlax]

I have heard both sides of the evolution/creation debate quite a bit...

An interesting thing is that evolution proponents are always saying "use science" and that creationists are not using science. The evolutionists then go about using faith and a religious system instead of science.

Uhh actually they are not you only feel this way because you don't understand it.

Science is observation. It is clear facts.

Well I guess there are still lots of people in 'first world countries' at the dawn of the 21st century that still don't know what science is. Fact and observation are everywhere. Science explains why we see these observations, why we see these facts. Seeing a fact is not understanding it, we use science to understand why something is a fact.

If you watch a bird fly are you doing science? No you are only making an observation, which is part of science but the science would lay in you explaining how

the bird was flying.

The fact that we have never witnessed any aspect of macro evolution is completely irrelevant to evolutionists, because they are using a religion...

please read up on the evolution of corn for just 1 example.

The fact that we have tremendous support for a global flood due to huge masses of biological matter located in pockets all over the earth is not important, because their view is religious in nature.

Actually we don't have huge evidence for a flood. Try this at home. Get tons of shells, separate them by type (this will represent different species of animals). Put these in a bucket of water then dump them all out. You will see a random garbled mess of shells, that are not ordered at all. This is how deposits would look if there was a world consuming flood. We don't see that though, animal remains occur in layers.

The fact that we've seen rocks and canyons that according to evolutionary theory would take millions of years to form, form in a decade on Mt St Helens is irrelevant to the evolutionist.

You're comparing canyons formed by lava flow to something like the grand canyon? Please go visit each and take plenty of pictures then compare how they look.

The fact that we constantly see devolution, not evolution, rather a lessening of genetic diversity, is not important, because evolution is a religious belief.

Evolution is not linear there is no forward or backward, evolution is not driven so that everyone is evolving to be "higher species", evolution is driven by selection from an organisms environment.

The fact that the big bang would produce galaxies all moving AWAY from each other, yet we see galaxies colliding, is not important because evolution doesn't need facts, it needs believers.

Initially yes, everything was expanding. New galaxies are being made though and galaxies travel different speeds. Expansion of the universe and mass distribution is not homogeneous. Its like your drive home from work on the freeway, some people drive faster than you. They may have a collision with you because of it, that does not mean you cannot have the collision because you are both traveling in the same direction.

There are many more reasons to doubt evolution and the 'big bang', but these are just a few off the top of my head... any ideas you'd specifically like me to refute? Write them out yourself... don't copy them from somebody else's website, and I'll refute them individually for you...

None specifically, you can continue to write your "disputing points" here though and I will be sure to correct anything you post wrong. Although, it would help if you actually had an understanding of what you are refuting.

Edited August 31, 2007 by camlax

[camlax]

Your opinion, I believe - unless you have evidence?

Correct

Wrong. See This page

There is no evidence to support a global flood. None. And, I might add plenty of evidence against it.

Wow, that's a new one. Have you ever asked a geologist to back that statement up?

Hogwash.

Again, rubbish. You do not understand Universal expansion

The idea, JS, is to support the statements YOU make. It is not up to somebody else to refute your argument - the burden of proof fall squarely on the shoulers of those disputing accepted theory.

JS

Jinx!

[Beckys_Mom]

I've never told anybody that they're doomed.

Yea I know you didnt...hence the reason I posted this -->

but when you tell IE (pretend)..non believer, that they are doomed...

How you missed that, I dont know LOL re-read my post..I was just using an example

Edited August 31, 2007 by Beckys_Mom

[DogsHead]

Jinx!

(shakes fist at sky)

Damn you Camlax!!

[jdlsmith]

Your opinion, I believe - unless you have evidence?

Correct

Wrong. See This page

There is no evidence to support a global flood. None. And, I might add plenty of evidence against it.

Wow, that's a new one. Have you ever asked a geologist to back that statement up?

Hogwash.

Again, rubbish. You do not understand Universal expansion

The idea, JS, is to support the statements YOU make. It is not up to somebody else to refute your argument - the burden of proof fall squarely on the shoulers of those disputing accepted theory.

JS

Ok, you're not interested in serious discussion, are you?

Anyway, it's not my opinion. Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven, and it has been shown to have tremendous flaws in it. It takes 'faith' to believe it.

Seems we have some disagreement on whether science is about facts or theories, but you agree with me on this one. Others think science is about inventing theories to 'explain' what we see.

Micro evolution happens. Corn/Maize is a good example... loss of the genetic information. Fruit flies are another excellent example... the problem is that we only see a loss of genetic information, with certain specific losses based on regions. We never have observed an increase of genetic information. The famouse white moths/black moths are another excellent example. The fossil record is not a good example, because we know our dating systems are wrong for those anyway... just look at the number of times the dates have changed... you want to believe the date they say now?

Again, for evolution to work, it requires addition of genetic information... that MUST happen for evolution to work as claimed by it's proponents.

Ok, no evidence for a global flood? Explain our oil and coal deposits... tremendous masses of dead things compressed by many layers of rock. There is no good evolutionary model to explain these, yet the creationist model fits perfectly... a global flood would mass dead plants and animals and then deposit layers of sediment on them creating vast amounts of pressure quickly enough to beat decomposition. We know what it takes to make oil now... we can mimic the process in a matter of months... not millions of years as evolutionist say it requires.

Do some research on the mini-grand canyon at Mt St Helens. I think if you find a good scientific evaluation you'll be rather surprised. For fairness, I'll give you the link to a supposed refutation of it as well... I won't give you the creationist side b/c I think you'll see the fallacies quick enough... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

Are you saying that loss of genetic info is hogwash? The examples of corn, fruit flies, moths, etc... all show tremendous loss of genetic diversity, and you used those examples yourself.

You're right, I don't understand Universal Expansion because the theory is flawed. My only possible way to rationalize the colliding galaxies with a 'big bang' from my understanding of physics is with terminal velocity and chaos, but those are ineffective in a vaccuum. Would you care to elaborate on how matter flying apart at extremely high speeds in a vaccuum would eventually turn to itself and manage a collision when it has once reached beyond the gravitational pull and doesn't lose speed due to friction?

Actually, the first post was anti-creation. I'd expect that camp to defend itself...

JS

[DogsHead]

Ok, you're not interested in serious discussion, are you?

I have no idea why you'd say that. I just spent 20 minutes replying to your post, point by point. I'll do the same for this one. You think you could drop the 'tude fella?

Anyway, it's not my opinion. Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven, and it has been shown to have tremendous flaws in it. It takes 'faith' to believe it.

I will point this out as I have so many times before (not to you tho) There are no Proofs anywhere except in mathematics. Evolutionary theory is a theory in the same way as Special Relativity. It has equivalent amounts of evidence, both experimental, observational, and logical. It is accepted wholly by the scientific and educational communities. It is not complete (no-one has ever claimed this) and as it is with science, we are continually learning. It doesn't take faith.

Seems we have some disagreement on whether science is about facts or theories, but you agree with me on this one. Others think science is about inventing theories to 'explain' what we see.

To be totally honest, I said "correct" to your statement regarding science, because I wanted to agree with at least ONE statement in your post. Yes, science is about facts and observation - it is also about ideas, testing, experimentation, theories, hypothesis, etc, etc. Is that clear?

Micro evolution happens. Corn/Maize is a good example... loss of the genetic information. Fruit flies are another excellent example... the problem is that we only see a loss of genetic information, with certain specific losses based on regions. We never have observed an increase of genetic information. The famous white moths/black moths are another excellent example.

I am at a loss as to what you are arguing here. Could you be more specific?

The fossil record is not a good example, because we know our dating systems are wrong for those anyway... just look at the number of times the dates have changed... you want to believe the date they say now?

Again, rubbish. There has been no serious challenge to the radiocarbon dating system for close to 20 years.

Again, for evolution to work, it requires addition of genetic information... that MUST happen for evolution to work as claimed by it's proponents.

Source for this claim?

Ok, no evidence for a global flood? Explain our oil and coal deposits... tremendous masses of dead things compressed by many layers of rock. There is no good evolutionary model to explain these, yet the creationist model fits perfectly... a global flood would mass dead plants and animals and then deposit layers of sediment on them creating vast amounts of pressure quickly enough to beat decomposition. We know what it takes to make oil now... we can mimic the process in a matter of months... not millions of years as evolutionist say it requires

.

There is perfectly good, accepted palaeobiological/geological theory for these phenomena.

You keep making these sweeping statements without backing them up. How's that working for ya?

Do some research on the mini-grand canyon at Mt St Helens. I think if you find a good scientific evaluation you'll be rather surprised. For fairness, I'll give you the link to a supposed refutation of it as well... I won't give you the creationist side b/c I think you'll see the fallacies quick enough... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

Oh, please give me a creationist source... it would be a first!

Are you saying that loss of genetic info is hogwash? The examples of corn, fruit flies, moths, etc... all show tremendous loss of genetic diversity, and you used those examples yourself.

This is what I said was hogwash.

The fact that we constantly see devolution, not evolution, rather a lessening of genetic diversity, is not important, because evolution is a religious belief.

You're right, I don't understand Universal Expansion

That is a correct statement.

because the theory is flawed.

Oh? How can you know it is flawed if you don't understand it?

My only possible way to rationalize the colliding galaxies with a 'big bang' from my understanding of physics is with terminal velocity and chaos, but those are ineffective in a vaccuum.

I don't mean to be sarky, but we'll just add physics, terminal velocity, and chaos theory to that list of things you don't understand.

Would you care to elaborate on how matter flying apart at extremely high speeds in a vaccuum would eventually turn to itself and manage a collision when it has once reached beyond the gravitational pull and doesn't lose speed due to friction?

Well, if you are really keen to learn I will, but I suspect this request is not intended to enlist my services as a tutor...

Actually, the first post was anti-creation. I'd expect that camp to defend itself...

Well, we keep asking... but so far; nada.

[Agent. Mulder]

Okay. I don't expect people to believe everything I say, just as I'm sure you don't expect people to believe everything you say.

you know, if we came from adam and eve, then were all.............ugh, i dont even wanna say it. but, related. meaning there first kids had sex with each other, to have more kids, then they had sex with those other kids, and so on.....ewwwwwwwwwwww nasty. what kind of horrible god would make people do that!? bah!

[WalkingWithFire]

you know, if we came from adam and eve, then were all.............ugh, i dont even wanna say it. but, related. meaning there first kids had sex with each other, to have more kids, then they had sex with those other kids, and so on.....ewwwwwwwwwwww nasty. what kind of horrible god would make people do that!? bah!

Actually, it would've been pretty much the same if you support creation or evolution. The first two humans would've had children, and their children would've had children.

[Agent. Mulder]

Actually, it would've been pretty much the same if you support creation or evolution. The first two humans would've had children, and their children would've had children.

uum, no, not really. because we dont know what evolved first, then mated. and where.

it could have been two different species on different sides of the planet. but with yours we have 'just two people. its a "Fact"'

[WalkingWithFire]

uum, no, not really. because we dont know what evolved first, then mated. and where.

it could have been two different species on different sides of the planet. but with yours we have 'just two people. its a "Fact"'

Yeah, it could've been a space alien and a monkey

[Agent. Mulder]

Yeah, it could've been a space alien and a monkey

an alien, sure

[WalkingWithFire]

an alien, sure

Yeah, maybe E.T. met up with Bobo the Chimp or something.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I saw no backslapping ,verbally or otherwise ,are you reading into it the things you want to see?

fullywired

What i meant was that all scientists in the video were portraying only one side of the argument. "Back-slapping" was just my way of saying that they all had one common goal, with not even a single dissenting voice, which shows the bias of the video, considering we know that there are opposing views.

Know what I mean.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I see it differently. I have yet to see a creationist create a compelling argument for it's beliefs. I am interested to know what you and others think they are because maybe I have yet to hear them. Every single case a creationist makes has been refuted. I have met other biologists who said evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, and in my opinion, they are taking the conservative approach. They don't want to make enemies in the classroom or lab. Intelligent Design didn't occur because if it did, everything would have been more intelligently conceived. We wouldn't have one hole for breathing and eating, we would have two to decrease death rates of choking for example. A human engineer is smarter than this supposed creator.

There is no "scientific" evidence, if that's what you are asking. If there were a scientifically accurate answer, then I would say it does belong in the classroom. But it doesn't, so I said it belongs in the chapel.

My argument for Creation goes like this. God created us. God used natural means to produce this effect. This natural cause is Evolution. God inspired evolution.

Simple, straightforward. Not scientific, you are correct. But Evolution does not preclude Creation, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Hope that straightens out my meaning.

[+Link of Hyrule]

After reading through this thread, I would like to ask people to respectfully keep to the topic at hand. Somewhere along the line, we had a few posts about gay-rights, for example. Please keep discussions confined to the content of the opening thread.

WalkingWithFire - do not continue to make statements about the falsehood of evolution without evidence to back it up. Your continued refusal to post any evidence of your own and only refute every response with "well, evolution is wrong" is making this thread look like children fighting about who is right. Please provide evidence for your statements, or this thread cannot help but spiral down into uselessness.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

~ PA

[camlax]

Ok, you're not interested in serious discussion, are you?

Anyway, it's not my opinion. Evolution is a theory. It has not been proven, and it has been shown to have tremendous flaws in it. It takes 'faith' to believe it.

Correction, Evolution is a fact of life. You know how you were rambling on about observation and facts? Well evolution is one of those, evolutionary theory explains why we see those facts.

Seems we have some disagreement on whether science is about facts or theories, but you agree with me on this one. Others think science is about inventing theories to 'explain' what we see.

You only disagree because you don't know what science is. There are lots of people floating around here who are scientists or who have very strong science backgrounds. I am sure they will back me up when I say, we use science to explain facts we observe. Just observing a fact is meaningless. Seeing the sun in the sky does not explain why it is there or what it is doing. Understand?

Micro evolution happens.

You bet and so does macro evolution, it is micro evolution over long time periods. You are using a stereotypical argument here that is easily debunked.

Corn/Maize is a good example... loss of the genetic information. Fruit flies are another excellent example... the problem is that we only see a loss of genetic information, with certain specific losses based on regions. We never have observed an increase of genetic information. The famouse white moths/black moths are another excellent example.

Umm, are you just making up biology as you go along? You know how chromosomes can be duplicated correct? Rather than explain all of this too you, you need to spend some time reading and learning before you go about just making claims.

Mobile genetic elements

Be sure to read up on Transposons and Gene duplication

The fossil record is not a good example, because we know our dating systems are wrong for those anyway... just look at the number of times the dates have changed... you want to believe the date they say now?

Again, for evolution to work, it requires addition of genetic information... that MUST happen for evolution to work as claimed by it's proponents.

What? This is about as good as listening to Kent Hovind. I bet you are one of those people who think we only date with C-14. There are many dating techniques some more accurate than others. Please read up HERE, this will cover this argument and your next one I am sure will follow, that Dinosaurs have been carbon dated it must be incorrect!

Ok, no evidence for a global flood? Explain our oil and coal deposits... tremendous masses of dead things compressed by many layers of rock. There is no good evolutionary model to explain these, yet the creationist model fits perfectly... a global flood would mass dead plants and animals and then deposit layers of sediment on them creating vast amounts of pressure quickly enough to beat decomposition. We know what it takes to make oil now... we can mimic the process in a matter of months... not millions of years as evolutionist say it requires.

Well firstly you make the incorrect assumption that oil and coal only comes from dead animals. Only showing again that you don't know what you are talking about. Hydrocarbons occur naturally in our solar system. Theres actually lots of evidence to suggest that some form naturally in earth's mantle.

Anyway back to the point. No a flood is not needed to deposit lots of animals and plant life into one area to create a huge oil deposit. Ever been to a rain forest, coral reef or swamp? All of these have millions and millions of pounds of biomass, something like climate change or glaciation could easily trap lots of carbon based life there.

Do some research on the mini-grand canyon at Mt St Helens. I think if you find a good scientific evaluation you'll be rather surprised. For fairness, I'll give you the link to a supposed refutation of it as well... I won't give you the creationist side b/c I think you'll see the fallacies quick enough... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

Uhh not sure why you think you have scored any points with this

Rapid erosion of sediments along the north fork of Toutle River, flowing out of Spirit Lake on Mount St. Helens, carved a canyon like a miniature Grand Canyon, showing that the Grand Canyon could form suddenly.

1. The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.
2. The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

3. The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4. The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

5. The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

But don't take their word for it. Try this at home, get out your garden hose and two big buckets. Fill one with concrete (This will be your hard canyon rock) and one with sand (your volcanic ash). Now allow your hose to run on them for equal amounts of time then take pictures and be sure to post them here so we can see which one eroded first.

Erosion speed is not universal, it depends on material and the amount of force doing it. Something like the Mississippi river erodes much more dirt than the creek in your back yard.

Are you saying that loss of genetic info is hogwash? The examples of corn, fruit flies, moths, etc... all show tremendous loss of genetic diversity, and you used those examples yourself.

New species evolved but you are saying that is a loss of genetic diversity? Or are you trying to say that because a new species evolved there was a loss of genetic variation? You seem very confused about what genetic variation is.

You're right, I don't understand Universal Expansion because the theory is flawed. My only possible way to rationalize the colliding galaxies with a 'big bang' from my understanding of physics is with terminal velocity and chaos, but those are ineffective in a vaccuum. Would you care to elaborate on how matter flying apart at extremely high speeds in a vaccuum would eventually turn to itself and manage a collision when it has once reached beyond the gravitational pull and doesn't lose speed due to friction?

I can see why you don't understand, obviously physics is not strong with you! Do not fear though, I am a physicist (though not an astrophysicist). I can still answer your question though!

Allow me to explain in more detail.

We learned from Newton that all objects exert an attractive force on each other. If this were not the case you would fall off the earth.

The is true of galaxies. For the example of you and the earth the relationship is pretty one way. With two things as large as galaxies the gravitational force exerted is more equal (well not always, but a lot more equal of a relationship than you and the earth).

That the galaxy is composed of individual parts does not make a difference. To gravity on a galaxy scale, a galaxy appears as one massive object. Your body is composed of individual atoms, yet you still exert as a whole, a small force of gravity on the earth.

Anyway, gravity does not need friction, terminal velocity, or chaos to work.

Edit: To further address your post. There is no such thing really as "beyond the pull of gravity". Sure you can get to distances where gravitational fields are very weak but gravity still exists. I know distances between galaxies seems inconceivable to you but to objects that weigh more than 1x10⁴⁰ its another day in the park.

Besides as I said earlier, the universe is not homogeneous, there is clumping of mass and galaxies and stars etc. Not every galaxy is colliding either.

Edited August 31, 2007 by camlax

[DogsHead]

Actually, it would've been pretty much the same if you support creation or evolution. The first two humans would've had children, and their children would've had children.

Wrong in so many ways.

[WalkingWithFire]

Wrong in so many ways.

Evidence?

[DogsHead]

Evidence?

Oh, haha, very droll. You first, I insist!