Picture of the Aids virus: Teen aids
Evolutionists often suggest that there is not enough "time" involved in the speciation of animals to have made all the species that exist from the time of the Flood (4,400 years). They are refering to their claim that all evolution in the fossil records take millions of years to happen.
The problem with the fossil record is that we are only looking at the evidence at the "end" of the process. Which means the process is not observable because of the claimed time factor. And this claimed time factor is supposetly supported by age dating. Barring that cross contamination would ever happen. But it does and is ignored.
But, the claimed millions of years process for all of evolution is not observable or testable in a lab. And of course not repeatable as well. But there is one type of evolution that is observable, testable, and repeatable in a lab. And that is the quick mutation of the Aids virus.
As one med site says: However, HIV-1 mutates rapidly and can quickly acquire genetic mutations that make it able to resist these drugs. For this reason, anti-HIV-1 treatments commonly fail.
Quick mutation equals quick evolution (speciation). So animals from the flood can have all the species we currently see. Which means that millions of years is not needed to obtain all the life forms currently observed.
1) The aids fast mutation "process" is observable.
2) The millions of years of claimed evolution process is not.
So fossils don't make it a win win game. But "observable and testable" evidence does. And the fast mutation of Aids is observable, testable, and repeatable. And in my book, those three facts beat a fossil dug up in the dirt any day.
And you add the fact that the Bible currently supports evolution as long as it stays with the reproduction rules of Kind Creation (bird speciates but remains a bird kind), it shows that God actually set the rules for what process is observable. And does not support the processes that are not. What processes?
1) mutation.
2) speciation.
3) Micro-evolution.
All of these processes not only fall into "kind creation" rules of reproduction. But are observable, testable, and repeatable. there is nothing in the fossil record that fits like this does to observable evidence.
You can study the process of quick mutation of the Aids virus by typing in: Aids virus mutation. Into any search engine.
Here is where you can study how complex the Aids virus really is: http://www.teenaids.org/Teens/HIVAIDSInfo/WhatisHIVAIDS/tabid/332/Default.aspx
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/biog105/pages/demos/106/unit04/6b.retroviruses.html
How is this comparible to the fossil record?
1) Is the "process" for millions of years of claimed evolution observable? No
2) Is the process for quick evolution observable? Yes.
3) Is the "process" for millions of years os claimed evolution testable and repeatable? No.
4) Is the process for quick evolution testable and repeatable? Yes.
If it is observable testable and repeatable, is not that better or worse evidence than fossils that are dug up? One evolutionist I was debating on a forum got mad because he could not debunk this evidence, and using his own logic against him, I proved that this evidence was better than anything he could dig up. So he accused me of underhanded debate tactics. Evolutionists don't like to be wrong on any issue. So then I pointed out in detail why he was mad. It is because my conclusions about this were scientifically sound so he could not do the things listed below:
1) You cannot claim that a creationist made it up.
2) You cannot claim that a creationist faked it.
3) You cannot claim a creationist agenda.
4) You cannot claim a creationist lie.
5) You cannot claim that it is not scientific.
6) You cannot claim that it is not testable.
7) You cannot claim that it is not re-testable and repeatable.
His only defense? He did not like my 'presentation" of this idea, and something about a fatal flaw that did not make any sense.
