Unsure of flat or not but here's something interesting

Quote

Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life".

That has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

The first two don't require the Earth to move, so long as something around the Earth moves. The details of this in a working model will take a lot to get into (possible but there's a lot of framework to build up before it can be explained, which'll bore anyone reading the thread: I have an open invitation to readers to PM me if they want the details of the only working FE model) but if viewed purely hypothetically it's clear. Scientifically there is no difference whether we take the Earth as stationary, or take some other source as stationary, so long as there is an explanation for the force.
Weight differences are answerable too. On a FE it's simpler, as the force you call gravity would be different. I can only wish luck to geocentric REers.

Quote

Quote

Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life".

That has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Absolutely wrong. It is the foundation of the theory of evolution.

We need to know what that something is (I am 100% sure every FEer would like at least something to explain their stationary "model"). Unless those can be demonstrated, it implies the Earth is moving.

• Density of atmosphere.
• Temperature of air (inversions).
• Water evaporating.
• Waves.

No, it is not. Evolution is about the development of existing life. Even REers know this.

Evolution couldn't happen without abiogenesis. And computer programming couldn't happen without the existence of a microchip, or for that matter the creation of the universe. Does that mean the creation of the universe is the foundation of computer programming?
There is no law that says life can only come from life. Evolution is about the complexity of life. It has nothing to do with the ultimate origin. Abiogenesis is a different topic. Feel free to read about it. There is no forerunner among the theories, but there are theories. Feel free to believe God created life, or whatever you want. Evolution is still a completely different topic.

Actually, you are correct, my misuse of the word evolution. I meant abiogenesis. But, evolution does depend on it. If God created life some 6000 years ago, there would not be time for anything to evolve. BTW, there is micro-evolution (adaption - 100% true) and macro-evolution (one thing turning into another - cat to dog - 100% false). Without proof of abiogenesis, macro-evolution becomes meaningless.

The difference between a fact and a law is that a fact is a one-off event. A law is universal in scope. Facts are used in courts of law to find people innocent or guilt and so should not be ignored. Laws apply universally to everything (e.g. Laws of Thermodynamics) so definitely should not be ignored. Unless you can provide an exception, "Life comes from previous living things" IS a LAW (universal).

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 23, 2015, 01:06:35 PM

Actually, you are correct, my misuse of the word evolution. I meant abiogenesis. But, evolution does depend on it. If God created life some 6000 years ago, there would not be time for anything to evolve. BTW, there is micro-evolution (adaption - 100% true) and macro-evolution (one thing turning into another - cat to dog - 100% false). Without proof of abiogenesis, macro-evolution becomes meaningless.

There's no difference. Macroevolution is microevolution, only on a larger scale. There's no reason changes wouldn't add up. God did not create life 6000 years ago, recorded human history predates that.

Quote

The difference between a fact and a law is that a fact is a one-off event. A law is universal in scope. Facts are used in courts of law to find people innocent or guilt and so should not be ignored. Laws apply universally to everything (e.g. Laws of Thermodynamics) so definitely should not be ignored. Unless you can provide an exception, "Life comes from previous living things" IS a LAW (universal).

I can happily provide an exception: the natural origin of single-celled life on Earth millenia ago.
This is not circular. We know life has developed: I could just as easily say "God does not create life," is a law. Otherwise, I would question your definition of law. it seems to be "We have not osberved something, therefore it cannot happen." I've never observed a turtle dunked in liquid nitrogen and then thrown in a baseball game and smashed, that doesn't mean the laws of the universe conspire to make it impossible. It's just a rare event.

However, this seems to be getting off topic.

I actually don't like the word micro-evolution, because it's confusing--it's really not the same as macro-evolution at all. Speciation does not require the same kind of information as kinds changing into other kinds.

Secondly, do you know how we have "recorded history" that "predates that?" You might be interested in reading about dating methods and how they really work on creation.com.

There's no difference. Macroevolution is microevolution, only on a larger scale.

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 21, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?

Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 23, 2015, 02:17:37 PM

I actually don't like the word micro-evolution, because it's confusing--it's really not the same as macro-evolution at all. Speciation does not require the same kind of information as kinds changing into other kinds.

If you believe that, it isn't me who needs to learn. It's all a question of degree. Species is a human label, with grey areas, not a naturally developed definition.

Quote

Secondly, do you know how we have "recorded history" that "predates that?" You might be interested in reading about dating methods and how they really work on creation.com.

It's more than dating. I distrust scientists, I don't distrust directly recorded history.

My only aversion to God is logical. As you say, however, it's off topic.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 23, 2015, 05:34:13 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 21, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?

Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.

In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.

In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?

sandokhan, most calculations, like the one you are presenting, are in an ideal world.

The biggest problem I have with "line of sight" arguments concerning the horizon is there are lots of factors involved when people observe things.

• Density of atmosphere.
• Temperature of air (inversions).
• Water evaporating.
• Waves.

In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?

You distrust scientists, but you trust what they say when they measure things and the methods of dating?

They are able to explain the problem of macro-evolution in a very logical, satisfactory way.

And this world doesn't make sense without God. It's not logical. There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all. Oh well I could go on and on I guess lol. I just don't get how one can really dismiss God based on logic. It makes no sense to me.

Quote from: chtwrone on October 23, 2015, 08:50:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 23, 2015, 05:34:13 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 21, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?

Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.

In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.

In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?

So in the northern hemiplain summer the sun would have to move slower so the day would still be 24 hours. How come it still moves at the same speed when viewed from down under.

Quote from: guv on October 23, 2015, 10:20:00 PM

Quote from: chtwrone on October 23, 2015, 08:50:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 23, 2015, 05:34:13 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 21, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?

Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.

In the RE model, it is the earth's rotation on its axis every 24 hours that accounts for the movement of the sun, causing day and night.

In the FE model, what is the means by which the sun (and moon) moves in a circle over the earth's surface once every 24 hours?

So in the northern hemiplain summer the sun would have to move slower so the day would still be 24 hours. How come it still moves at the same speed when viewed from down under.

True only in the uniplanar model. I refe ryou to my sig. You're asking after elements of DET which can't be explained until you have a firm understanding of an underlying principle, and the shape of the Earth.

With regards to the RE model, do you agree that the earth's rotation on its axis once every 24 hours accounts for the sun's movement, resulting in periods of light and dark?  We see this 'axial rotation' phenomenon in other celestial bodies within our solar system, so why would it be a big leap to accept that this 'theory' is actually what is causing the sun's movement on earth?

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 23, 2015, 10:05:37 PM

You distrust scientists, but you trust what they say when they measure things and the methods of dating?

That's not what I said. I referred specifically to recorded history, not dating.

Quote

They are able to explain the problem of macro-evolution in a very logical, satisfactory way.

They don't understand the theory then, it's that simple. Just because something is tricky to visualize doesn't mean it's wrong.

Quote

And this world doesn't make sense without God. It's not logical. There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all. Oh well I could go on and on I guess lol. I just don't get how one can really dismiss God based on logic. It makes no sense to me.

There's a lot to say, but I'll limit my response to just what you brought up. Can you explain why God gives moral value, purpose and a difference between right and wrong: and does so in a way which no other standard can match?

Quote from: chtwrone on October 24, 2015, 03:26:35 AM

With regards to the RE model, do you agree that the earth's rotation on its axis once every 24 hours accounts for the sun's movement, resulting in periods of light and dark?  We see this 'axial rotation' phenomenon in other celestial bodies within our solar system, so why would it be a big leap to accept that this 'theory' is actually what is causing the sun's movement on earth?

In the RE model, that is true. In the DE and FE, it is not.

I must not be understanding what "recorded history" you're referring to.

Can you explain a little more by what you meant when you said "no other standard can match"?

Folks, you CAN'T argue the DE theory/model/map when one has not been presented. All you can do concerning the DE theory/model/map is believe that JR is correct and it explains everything. That is his argument.

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 24, 2015, 10:44:19 AM

I must not be understanding what "recorded history" you're referring to.

Recorded history. What else does it mean? Humans have been making records sicne we first evolved.

Quote

Can you explain a little more by what you meant when you said "no other standard can match"?

You said only God could provide such things. if this is so, there must be something special about the purpose, moral value, moral system... God sets down. I fail to see why the rest of your answer is relevant.

Quote

Folks, you CAN'T argue the DE theory/model/map when one has not been presented. All you can do concerning the DE theory/model/map is believe that JR is correct and it explains everything. That is his argument.

I've given you the means to hear it. I'm choosing not to try and explain a lengthy model in every single thread when I'm asked. To explain the Sun, you'll need to understand a fundamental principle, the set-up of the Earth, and then I can answer the question. That's a lot of text, and you'll likely need to ask questions for clarification throughout. A forum post will just confuse matters, especially with the perpetual trolling that goes on here.
Science is taught this way. If you refuse to learn the model, it is entirely your fault, I will take none of the blame. You claim there is no model, why do you refuse to find out?

So what is it in human recorded history that makes you believe in evolution?

So what you're asking is why God set up a moral code in the first place? It was the way we would've been, naturally, without any evil. Evil is selfishness. Perfect morality is basically the absence of selfishness and the presence of pure love of others and of God. Now am I closer to what you were asking?

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 24, 2015, 12:05:15 PM

So what is it in human recorded history that makes you believe in evolution?

Changing the topic? Human recorded history was relating to the age of the Earth, not evolution. Evolution is accepted because we directly observe species altering over generations, and it is trivial to conclude those changes would add up over large tiemscales.

Quote

So what you're asking is why God set up a moral code in the first place? It was the way we would've been, naturally, without any evil. Evil is selfishness. Perfect morality is basically the absence of selfishness and the presence of pure love of others and of God. Now am I closer to what you were asking?

No, that is not even close to what I was asking. Are you intentionally doing this?

Why are the moral values/standards and purpose given by God different to the standards, purpose etc given by anything else? Why can only God provide then, as you claimed?

You said "There would be no moral value, no purpose, no difference between right and wrong. Without God, there *is* no meaning, and therefore nothing makes sense at all."
I quoted this, and asked you why. You completely ignored it. I asked the same thing again, you seem to take completely inexplicable routes of understanding. I am asking you to justify this claim of yours.

You said that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old because we have "recorded history" that "predates that" which is how we got into the subject of dating methods. I would like to know what records you are referring to, and how you know how old they are.

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your morality question. I'll give it another shot. You are asking why we would have no morality or purpose to life without God? Because if we are merely animals, the idea of right and wrong is an illusion. Without God, morality is nothing more than chemicals fizzing around in our heads, because how can a materialist derive moral principles and purpose to our existence from mere energy and matter? There are no oughts in chemistry. What is, is, that's all. Evolutionary materialism means no logical basis for objective meaning, morals, or purpose.

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 24, 2015, 11:16:33 PM

You said that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old because we have "recorded history" that "predates that" which is how we got into the subject of dating methods. I would like to know what records you are referring to, and how you know how old they are.

Human history. Events are recorded, relative dates are specified, it's not hard to piece together a decent age.

Quote

If you can't give me a specific example, I will assume none exists. I can't think of anything recorded by humans that leads us to believe they were around millions of years ago.

Quote

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your morality question. I'll give it another shot. You are asking why we would have no morality or purpose to life without God? Because if we are merely animals, the idea of right and wrong is an illusion. Without God, morality is nothing more than chemicals fizzing around in our heads, because how can a materialist derive moral principles and purpose to our existence from mere energy and matter? There are no oughts in chemistry. What is, is, that's all. Evolutionary materialism means no logical basis for objective meaning, morals, or purpose.

That's closer, but that's not an answer. I am asked what the difference is. If we have some standard A of morality/purpose derived without God, and some standard B derived from or with God, what is the meaningful difference? Is it just 'because God said it' and if so, why? What traits does God have/what traits does God give to the standard to make it special?
(Also, the is-ought problem is outdated. It's trivial to derive an ought from an is. if 'is' gives us the end goal, it's easy to determine what we 'ought' to do to reach it).

But some have also decided that their desired outcome is not by the means of being moral. For example, terrorists have decided that their goal in life is to murder everyone who does not agree and follow their religion. There was once a tribe who decided that eating people was also moral. Does that make their morality objective or subjective? I offer another challenge. The first evolved being would find out about your said moral goal in which way? The first accidental unselfish act would have never happened because man is too selfish. I argue that it would not be "easy to determine" in the least. Morality goes against our very nature. It has always been more difficult for us to not put ourselves first. But we know better. The end goal to our "special moral code", as you put it, leads us to being more like God, because it's who he is. We learn that God is love. So his moral code is simply the absence of selfishness, the presence of perfect love. Why? Because it's good. It results in our obvious happiness, well-being, and peace with one another. I don't really know how else to say it, so I'm sorry if I have failed to understand or answer your question. Again, creation.com is a good place to ask and search for questions, and they usually do a better job than I can. They will even answer you personally. So if I failed, I point you to them.

If you can't give me a specific example, I will assume none exists. I can't think of anything recorded by humans that leads us to believe they were around millions of years ago.

But some have also decided that their desired outcome is not by the means of being moral. For example, terrorists have decided that their goal in life is to murder everyone who does not agree and follow their religion. There was once a tribe who decided that eating people was also moral. Does that make their morality objective or subjective? I offer another challenge. The first evolved being would find out about your said moral goal in which way? The first accidental unselfish act would have never happened because man is too selfish. I argue that it would not be "easy to determine" in the least. Morality goes against our very nature. It has always been more difficult for us to not put ourselves first. But we know better. The end goal to our "special moral code", as you put it, leads us to being more like God, because it's who he is. We learn that God is love. So his moral code is simply the absence of selfishness, the presence of perfect love. Why? Because it's good. It results in our obvious happiness, well-being, and peace with one another. I don't really know how else to say it, so I'm sorry if I have failed to understand or answer your question. Again, creation.com is a good place to ask and search for questions, and they usually do a better job than I can. They will even answer you personally. So if I failed, I point you to them.

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 25, 2015, 09:57:53 AM

If you can't give me a specific example, I will assume none exists. I can't think of anything recorded by humans that leads us to believe they were around millions of years ago.

Why are you claiming millions, now? I was specifically referring to the 6000 year claim.
Millions of years is justified by the genetic similarities between humans and the great apes, proving we shared a common ancestor. The best example is a fused chromosome, showing either God is a liar, or we evolved.

Quote

Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm

Quote

But some have also decided that their desired outcome is not by the means of being moral. For example, terrorists have decided that their goal in life is to murder everyone who does not agree and follow their religion. There was once a tribe who decided that eating people was also moral. Does that make their morality objective or subjective? I offer another challenge. The first evolved being would find out about your said moral goal in which way? The first accidental unselfish act would have never happened because man is too selfish. I argue that it would not be "easy to determine" in the least. Morality goes against our very nature. It has always been more difficult for us to not put ourselves first. But we know better. The end goal to our "special moral code", as you put it, leads us to being more like God, because it's who he is. We learn that God is love. So his moral code is simply the absence of selfishness, the presence of perfect love. Why? Because it's good. It results in our obvious happiness, well-being, and peace with one another. I don't really know how else to say it, so I'm sorry if I have failed to understand or answer your question. Again, creation.com is a good place to ask and search for questions, and they usually do a better job than I can. They will even answer you personally. So if I failed, I point you to them.

That seems like an attempt at an answer, though you seemed to focus more on my is-ought aside: but why would God's morality be objective rather than subjective? Someone could very easily choose to disregard it. Or if the fact it still exists even if someone chooses to disregard it renders it transcendent, then the same is true of every single moral statement: the rule will not alter just because you wish to ignore it.
If it stands out because of the end result of the code, then that doesn't require God.
If you want me to go in-depth on morality, I'm happy to, but you may want to start a thread in PR&S.

God's morality would be objective because it's the only true morality. We disregard it every day. We lose our temper, we are rude, we wish ill of each other, etc. Even minorly, we go against what we know is right every day. We know and understand morality, but we still choose not to follow it every day. This makes sense if you know that there is an objective morality. But an objective morality requires a moral law-giver. Otherwise, morality is merely subjective and chemicals fizzing around in our heads. If you wish to start a new thread with me to go deeper, that is fine with me, if there's indeed more to be said.

Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm

God's morality would be objective because it's the only true morality. We disregard it every day. We lose our temper, we are rude, we wish ill of each other, etc. Even minorly, we go against what we know is right every day. We know and understand morality, but we still choose not to follow it every day. This makes sense if you know that there is an objective morality. But an objective morality requires a moral law-giver. Otherwise, morality is merely subjective and chemicals fizzing around in our heads. If you wish to start a new thread with me to go deeper, that is fine with me, if there's indeed more to be said.

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 25, 2015, 04:25:25 PM

Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm

There's no dating involved in judging a common ancestor: just look at the speed of evolution.
As for thos elinks, the first has paranoia, and the explanation for the fused chromosome is completely inexplicable. It does not explain a thing. If anything, it seems to claim God designed humans and apes to deliberately mislead us into thinking evolution occurred. If that's what you want to believe...

Quote

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 26, 2015, 12:33:50 AM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on October 25, 2015, 04:25:25 PM

Okay, so you distrust scientists but must trust in the dating methods after all (what I was saying before), or else you wouldn't assume our "common ancestor" was millions of years old. Our genetics are actually not that different from the ape's (see this article) http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated and similar genetic codes do not necessarily mean relation see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry. In regards to the fused chromosome argument, see this shorter article here: http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm

There's no dating involved in judging a common ancestor: just look at the speed of evolution.
As for thos elinks, the first has paranoia, and the explanation for the fused chromosome is completely inexplicable. It does not explain a thing. If anything, it seems to claim God designed humans and apes to deliberately mislead us into thinking evolution occurred. If that's what you want to believe...

Quote

Why does a moral law-giver make it special? Anyone can give a law: anyone cand efine "This is good," or "This is bad," with or without God. All that would alter, presumably, is how justified you think the claim is. But why would God be special? Claiming "It's the only true morality," is circular: that's your conclusion, but why is it the only true morality?

We can't "look at the speed of evolution" because we cannot look at evolution. Speciation, however, happens quite rapidly.

Facts, even though they may make a different viewpoint look bad from time to time, does not mean someone is paranoid. If you believe NASA is lying to us about the shape of our planet, I dare say you haven't the right to point at other's alleged paranoia. Speaking of which, how can you pick and choose what scientists lie to you about? Either you believe what they say or you don't. It can't just be what feels good and sounds good or is fun to believe. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Hope I haven't misjudged you. The third article was very short, and didn't explain much, I agree. Here is a rebuttal to an argument that was similar to yours in the comments:

"Humans having 23 chromosome pairs rather than 24 is neither evidence for or against evolution, nor for or against creation, as my article makes clear. Miller just assumed it was evidence for evolution, as he was driven by a paradigm.

There are millions of differences between human and chimpanzee DNA, making it clear that we are not related. In the Y chromosome alone, chimps have only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa. According to Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)

Natural selection could not possibly have fixed so many mutations into an evolving human population in the five to ten million years during which apes allegedly evolved into humans. (See Haldane’s dilemma has not been solved.) Evolutionists tried to get round this problem by arguing that much of our DNA is junk and was therefore not fixed in the population by natural selection. However, this argument, too, is falling apart as more and more functions of ‘junk DNA’ are discovered (see More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’.) This is certainly ‘a thumb in the eye of evolutionists’.

The scientific problems with evolutionary theory are enormous and fundamental. Most people have no idea that this is true because these kinds of facts are not communicated to the general public in the media or educational institutions."

This article may satisfy you better: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1 and then there's a sequel to that one: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2

What I tried to say earlier is that it's God's morality because it's based on who he is. It defines his character because he IS love. Love defines the morality. Good defines the morality. Not the other way around. Is that more clear? The only way anyone can define a law is by deciding what is good and bad based on how it suits them and gets them where they want to go. It would be based on the chemical reactions in their brains, but there would be no objective good or bad for any logical reason. Yet we will continue to give to charities, and firemen will continue to save babies. Because we know that good goes beyond feelings in our brains, don't we? But if morality is subjective, it has no authority over us. We can't rightly say that the murderer or rapist is wrong, because ultimately, there is no wrong.