iama:  I have ONLY seen evidence for variation within the created KIND, which is NEVER evidence for "goo to zoo to you."

Really?  Funny how you can't come up with a YEC explanation for why lions and tigers --- the same "kind" in your "model" -- can only produce sterile males.  Your "big cat kind" is diverging into 2 populations. 

And no it isn't because lions and tigers have "lost" information since the flood.  Observed scientific evidence you YECs constantly ignore disproves that idea: MHC genes in today's animals have many more alleles than the 4 that your ark kind could contribute; obviously, new information has been added.

Will you recognize the evidence of variation outside your imaginary "created kinds" this time when it's presented to you, Iam? 

iam: 1. "And the rains came tumbling down. The rains came down and the floods came up..."Those flying dinosaurs flying while "the rains came down..." Have you seen what the rain and wind do to an umbrella?

And yet not a single modern bird fell victim to that same problem.  So, YECism not only abandons evidence, but basic logic, too.  The YEC model just gets more and more credible every day, doesn't it? ROTFLMAO

iam: 2. Have you ever used a rock tumbler, McAtheist?  What is the function of a rock tumbler? As you can see if you observe rocks along a river, The Flood  / water is like a rock tumbler.3. Depending upon what the houses were made of: rock, mud, wood, cement, skins, why would you expect houses to survive The Flood intact?  Wood would float.  Mud would disolve, skins would be destroyed. Cement?? Did they have it?  Don't know.

So every single human artifact was destroyed but colonies of dinosaur nests with the eggs and shells intact weren't disturbed at all.  And you see no fundamental flaw in this "thinking", eh?  You can type with a straight fact that this makes sense and can pretend it is as scientifically sound as mainstream geology?  In what way is this kind of thinking not delusional?

iam: 8. Who is capable of understanding the effects of The Flood of such magnitude?

Real geologists with a real education in the field.  They know things like how much energy is released with something changes from liquid to solid, so they can figure out how much energy had to have been released when all your alleged flood sediments lithified --- and that energy was sufficient to boil away all the oceans on Earth.  Explosions violent enough to toss the asteroid belt into space would leave a tremendous amount of evidence.  The evidence is clear ---- your flood never happened.

I swear, if science is the vehicle by which we understand our world, then YECism is the clown car.

Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:09PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama:  I have ONLY seen evidence for variation within the created KIND, which is NEVER evidence for "goo to zoo to you."

The day you or anyone else provides evidence for variation "within the created kind" is the day I join the YEC movement.

So get cracking.

Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:01PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama:  I will, gladly take all of the scientifically gathered DATA, but I will be very careful to evaluate all of the speculation interpretations which are made based upon that scientifically gathered DATA, because the speculation interpretations are being made based upon their evoluton-long-age-presuppositions!

In other words, you will re-write any science you come across, into a dispensationalist friendly form of pseudo-science, and then claim that it is still science.

That is not true.

The science includes the deductions and conclusions, which are peer reviewed, and form the basis of further confirmatory science. As well, there are interactions between the sciences that you seem unaware of, which make many of your re-writings obvious and patent nonsense, due to the inherent falsifications in related scientific fields that reveal your ad hoc modifications to be inconsistent with the observed universe.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:13PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:58AM, MMarcoe wrote:

iama:  I have ONLY seen evidence for variation within the created KIND, which is NEVER evidence for "goo to zoo to you."

MMarcoe: The day you or anyone else provides evidence for variation "within the created kind" is the day I join the YEC movement.

So get cracking.

iama: Watch / listen to the following video:

Prof. Marc Kirschner - Facilitated variation

MMarcoe: Hey Iama, did you read where I (numerous times) reminded you that your much-hallowed conserved core processes can and do evolve over time? Don't go trotting it out as "evidence" for your variation within kinds. No one here will believe you.

How much longer are you going to sweep that under the rug before it blows up in your face?

iama:  All genetic entities are / can be subject to loss of information from various types of mutations.  Is that what you mean?  Loss of information is usually deleterious.

No. What I mean is that conserved core processes (CCP) themselves are subject to evolving over time. That's what I said above. I'm not talking about "genetic entities." The CCPs that you hold to be evidence of fixed kinds are themselves changeable. And that means that they cannot conserve kinds.

Listen to Marc Kirschner's statement toward the end of the video where he states "conserved" for billions of years????

The video is nearly an hour long, so I'd rather you told me exactly where he said that. Did he state that CCPs were unchanging? Just what did he mean by "conserved"?