quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.
What do you require in the fossil record as a 'transitional' ?
What are the features that would convince you of such a transitional
critter ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Natural selection, the driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. It along with mutations is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with each other) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been coded in the DNA of its parent. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.
What about horses and donkeys, or lions and tigers ?
They can breed, but produce infertile offspring.
This can be interpreted as an evolutionary divergence. With
continued isolation and further genetic modification they may
beome distinct in the reproductive sense.
Yes, natural selection is about survival. Extrapolate that
over a number of generations and what happens to the
population ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Natural selction [...] demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.
No, it doesn't. Even in a social context it simply means that
the best fitting will survive. This is not necessarily the
'strongest'.
How do mercy, pity and morality inhibit natural selection ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Practically, it has the following and many other inconsistencies:
1. The natural selction process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example.
To be a mechanism for evolution, why would it have to ?
Worse in relation to what ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
2. It requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived with basic intricate functions such as respiration or reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism.
This is basically irreducible complexity, yes ?
Isn't irreducable complexity just an argument from incredulity?
'I can't believe it could have come about from something less
complex, so it didn't.'
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
3. Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependant on order cannot be created by disorder.
How do you know this ?
What do you mean by 'disorder' and 'order' ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Continuing with logical inconsistencies about natural selection...
1. Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it.
Both explain the phenomenon equally. However, there is no
compelling evidence of design ... partly because we aren't
sure what it means to be 'designed' in any case.
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor.
Again, it could equally be either, and falls back to whether
or not we can detect design.
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow.
'Murder' and 'Cannibal' are socially constructed negatives,
not absolutes.
Is a lion a murderer for killing an antelope ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
4. While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed such as a baby to its parent and a seed to it tree, the pattern of growth is circular, not simply crude to the developed as natural selection proposes.
Eh ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival.
Existence in a group adds to individual survival chances, so
anything that makes a group more cohesive aids survival.
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.
In what way ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Although evolutionists state that life evolved from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come from life.
Saying that 'life must come from life' doesn't make it true, people
and ideas have prooved wrong in the past.
No-one is saying that a modern cell just popped into being
one day.
Humans
are animals.
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
The supposed hominids bones ...
That some finds are fragments, and that some hoaxes have been
perpetrated is not at issue.
There are plenty of finds that do not fall into these
categories though.
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human, but not something in between.
The why do so many who have studied the remains first hand
disagree with you ?
Are they trying to fool us all ?
What makes a set of remains human or ape (monkeys have
little to do with human evolution surely) ?
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
The rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution....
The flood mechanisms you suggest, even if feasible, would only 'tend'
to produce an order in the fossil record. There would be many
more anomalies.
You are suggesting in one breath that order cannot come from
disorder, and then relying on it in the next.
™ Version 4.2
