Evolution makes no sense

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
Ok, fine, I won't keep the debates in here personal.. I know very well how to act in a debate and I know that a person shouldn't take it too personal.. I've been at other message boards debating for about 6 months now and I've had the most experience in Creation/Evolution discussions and I think I know the most about the Creation/Evolution discussion than a lot of other people think..And I'm going to last here for way more than a week...

---

Since you have yet to give us anything to debate, yeah, you'll probably last way more than a week. When are you going to finally post something scientific?

​

[This message has been edited by EvO-DuDe, 07-19-2002]

"Ok, fine, I won't keep the debates in here personal.. I know very well how to act in a debate and I know that a person shouldn't take it too personal.. I've been at other message boards debating for about 6 months now and I've had the most experience in Creation/Evolution discussions and I think I know the most about the Creation/Evolution discussion than a lot of other people think..And I'm going to last here for way more than a week..."
--From the looks of your last post, seemingly your experience comes solely by inquiry in the 'Athiest vs. Christian' yahoo chatroom. Either that or a complete lack of experience at all. I'll have to hope that your attitude will shape up a tad, maybe more than just a 'tad' at that. You may have chilled a bit but this post still reveals hints at incooperation, a lack in respect, and no real pervasive interest in discussing but to biasedly uphold your own individual pre-conceived belief as your opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts (whatever it may be). Also, about your comments for how long you will 'last' here. Its not about quantity but quality, if your posts lack quality and are pasted with an overload of ignorant and arrogant commentaries you may 'last' as long as you want to stay here (unless percy kicks you out, and when percy kicks someone out.. there is very good reason). Just some thoughts on my part. Just give us a simple set of data or an argumental scientific approach in questioning, and we may end up having an enjoyable time with the exchanging of ideas, a willingness to learn. And of course as I put it, an 'unbiased scientific inquiry'.
--So lets just forget about these two posts and put some more effort into intelligibly inquiring discussion from this board. Good luck and enjoy the forum (please don't abuse, but appreciate it's even handed moderation).------------------

I asked a few question about your first post,
perhaps you could start by addressing them

First of all, no, I don't go to any of the "yahoo chatrooms" and discuss Christianity with Atheists or Christians.. It's because I have a Webtv and when I get on other computers (such as the library one that I'm on right now) I don't have enough time to go on them because it'll just be a waste of time to try and discuss it with them if I can't express my opinions in the lenght of time that I'd like to express them in... And I have better things to do than to BS in a chatrrom.. Furthermore, I don't have a lack of experience in anything that has to do with Creation or Evolution.... Or a lack of respect, either. It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect. That's why I didn't show you any respect because I haven't discussed anything with you. Geez.. If all of you show me respect, then I'll show you respect. If you don't, then I won't either. Ok, so you want to know my reasons why i disagree with Evolution? Here they are. Oh, and I don't mind typing a lot of information with one post, so expect me to post alot in one post pretty often in the future. I have no problem whatsoever with posting extremely long posts.There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occured either in the past or the present. Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species and plants, but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.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. Variation to organisms must remain within the basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutatiions impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.Natural selction can also be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Socially, it argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus, barbarism is demanded by natural selction with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It 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.
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. 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. 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.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. 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. 3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. 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. 5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival. 6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.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.The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They neither clear nor conclusive though evolutionists present them as if they were. They present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and of the flimsiest of "finds." Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist only of a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionists declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and them placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look iodentical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of honminids.Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. They are demonstrated to be extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all, the discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.
The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey 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 rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionsts assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossiles require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time, but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having ovvured. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account, but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years.I'll continue with answering your questions to this later...

​

[This message has been edited by Conspirator, 07-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
Webtv

---

ewwwww.... icky [QUOTE][b]It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect.[/QUOTE][/b]I hope you don't equate rebutting you arguments with not listening to you.

quote:

---

That's why I didn't show you any respect because I haven't discussed anything with you. Geez..

---

So we start off guilty? Is this cold war preemptive strike logic? Geez...

quote:

---

There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

---

Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters.

quote:

---

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.

---

You mentioned 'mutation' then quickly forgot about it. Genes do not replicate with 100% accuracy. There are errors, hence not all the genes match exactly the DNA of the parent organism(s).

quote:

---

Variation to organisms must remain within the basic kind.

---

Perhaps you can precisely define 'basic kind.' No one has yet to do so, that I can tell.

quote:

---

For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog.

---

Are wolves dogs?

quote:

---

This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there.

---

If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....

quote:

---

Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code.

---

This is simply wrong. Not all mutations are harmful-- most are perhaps, but not all. One mutations for example, allows a bacteria to digest nylon-- not a bad trick when food is scarce.Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.

quote:

---

For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered.

---

A wristwatch is a terrible analogy. For one, a wristwatch isn't self-replicating. Even the most simple organism is many times more complicated. Ever notice that a wristwatch isn't ALIVE?

quote:

---

Socially, it argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible.

---

This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.

quote:

---

Thus, barbarism is demanded by natural selction with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It 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.

---

This is a very simplistic application of natural selection to human society. Look up a field of anthropology called 'cultural ecology' Human society is far more complicated than people killing each other and strangely enough, it all has adaptive value. Think about it. No one would live very long if we were driven solely by the desire to destroy the weak. Ever notice that everyone thinks that everyone else is inferior? So WHY would this trait be selected for? Or, more accurately, why would this be the only trait selected for? Why not some other traits as well, that tone down this violence? Your argument is inconsistent.

quote:

---

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.

---

Natural selection has no forethought at all. Eyes function at every level of evolution. At first as a vague light sensor, then as a little bit better sensor and so on. What you posit isn't evolution.

quote:

---

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.

---

Are viruses alive? No bodies. No brains. No respiration. No digestion. [QUOTE][b]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. [/QUOTE][/b]All a system needs is power and it will develop order of a sort. Take convection currents in a pot of water on the stove.

quote:

---

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.

---

How do you figure? Seem like they would be much better designed for the environment if they were created to live in it. [QUOTE][b]2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor.[/QUOTE][/b]Why? The designer ran out of designs for molars?

quote:

---

In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor.

---

Statements are not arguments. Care to elaborate?

quote:

---

3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow.

---

Ok.

quote:

---

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.

---

You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.

quote:

---

5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival.

---

Sure it can. Humans are social creatures. Outside of society we don't survive well. But as you mentioned earlier, there is a tendency towards selfishness and barbarism. Emotions like love bond us together. Its a balancing act.

quote:

---

6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.

---

That order an independence is a vicious arms race. It isn't some kind of utopia. Things kill other things-- a lot.

quote:

---

humans resulted from animals

---

Humans are animals.

quote:

---

Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening.

---

Based on what?

quote:

---

Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism.

---

All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.

quote:

---

Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come from life.

---

These are descriptions of how things now work. They are not binding laws.

quote:

---

In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and of the flimsiest of "finds." Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist only of a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as fact.

---

I spent five years in college studying anthropology/archeology. The process doesn't work like this. There is an enormous amount of measurement, comparison, math, geoscience, etc, etc....

quote:

---

Some of these finds have turned out to be a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionists declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it.

---

And evolutionists corrected the problem as well.

quote:

---

Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books.

---

And you've analyzed the macro and microscopic wear patterns and the fracture patterns to determine that these are just rocks, not tools?

quote:

---

Footprints that look iodentical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of honminids.

---

Again, there are distictive patterns which can be analyzed if care is taken to do so.

quote:

---

Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

---

So there are extinct hominids. Big deal. There are extinct horses, and extinct birds, and extinct whales.Ancestor does not mean 'part-human'

quote:

---

the discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/apes.

---

No one is going to argu this point. But so what?

quote:

---

Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either.

---

Wrong. Just wrong. All apes share a lot of charicteristics with humans. Monkeys share a bit fewer characteristics. Lemurs and lorises fewer still. All the way back to this little mouse-like thing with opposable thumbs.

quote:

---

The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past.

---

A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.

quote:

---

These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.

---

Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.

quote:

---

The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all.

---

What final three? And stop with the part ape bit.

quote:

---

The rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

---

There is not a single complete and consistent flood model that can explain the rock strata, much less explain it better than mainstream geology.

quote:

---

Fossiles require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed.

---

Where did you hear this? Animals generally require rapid burial to fossilize, and then a tremendous amount of time.

quote:

---

Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time, but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria.

---

A lot of fossils show just this sort of damage. Bacteria don't eat bone.

quote:

---

The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason.

---

But this pattern isn't found in the fossil record.Besides which, smaller animals would be suspended by the currents for a longer period and would be deposited at the top.

quote:

---

Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low.

---

But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.

quote:

---

A universal flood has been well documented historically as having ovvured.

---

Not even close.

quote:

---

Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top.

---

ummm..... the fossils simply are in the rock sediment. How can you argue with this?

quote:

---

They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account, but not the evolutionary process.

---

Like for example? [QUOTE][b]In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years. [/QUOTE][/b]Where? Cite something. Roots do not count.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Conspirator's lengthy post ranged across the topics of transitional fossils, natural selection, genetics, social consequences of accepting evolution, the origin of life, human origins and geology. There are separate forums for each of these topics, and when different topics are raised together then the appropriate forum is Miscellaneous Topics. Unless there is an objection, within a day or so I will move this thread to that forum.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

First of all I want to state that with your opening post I think we all are going to find it difficult to grant you much respect. I will try. [QUOTE][b]The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species and plants, but none of the supposed links of plant to animal[/QUOTE][/b]I'm concerned about your background in evolution, because there are no theories that posit that animals descended from plants. You cannot blame a theory for a missing transitional that the theory never actually claims should exist!The missing transitional Creationist argument is old and should be laid to rest. I will give examples of transitionals and include the link to the source I got it from.Hunt's FAQ on T.O. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1[QUOTE][b]fish to amphibian[/QUOTE][/b]Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion
Panderichthys, Elpistostege
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega
Labyrinthodonts [QUOTE]Kathleen Hunt on TO: [b]"More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Ibid. [QUOTE][B]amphibian to reptile[/QUOTE][/b]"Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge."
Ibid.Also:Limnoscelis, Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus, Paleothyris [QUOTE][b]or reptile to birds and mammals are represented[/QUOTE][/b]Reptile to Mammal:Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus cromptoni
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium, Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani
Vincelestes neuquenianus
Pariadens kirklandi
Kennalestes, Asioryctes
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops(I'm tired of listing, so I'm going to use the Late Cretaceous as a stopping point)By the way, who said birds are directly descended from reptiles?

[QUOTE][b]nor any transitional forms at all.[/QUOTE][/b]Every living thing is a transitional form. [QUOTE][b]Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutatiions impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered.[/QUOTE][/b]The Ames Test, in microbiology, is used to test the potency of mutagens. Bacteria carrying a defective gene are cultured on a plate rich in a substance the bacteria cannot metabolize. When the defective bacteria are exposed to a substance that causes them to mutate, a point mutation occurs in the defective gene, in which a new base is added. This restores the gene to full function allowing the mutant bacteria to thrive on the medium. Hence, by randomly rearranging pieces of DNA inside the bacterium, function is improved.You are wrong on three counts: Mutations are not always small, they are not always random, and they are not always harmful. [QUOTE][b]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.[/QUOTE][/b]Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless. [QUOTE][b]2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. [/QUOTE][/b]Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless. [QUOTE][b]In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor.[/QUOTE][/b]Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless. [QUOTE][b]3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow.[/QUOTE][/b]Actually by eating meat we would be doing what our species is "designed" to do. [QUOTE][b]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.[/QUOTE][/b]Failure to make a clear point. [QUOTE][b]5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival.[/QUOTE][/b]Social bonds facilitate survival amongst social/pack animals. [QUOTE][b]Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis [/QUOTE][B]Biogenesis only covers rotting meat and chicken broth, not the early Earth. ToA is outside of its bounds. Cell principle: ditto. [QUOTE][B]The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent.[/QUOTE][/b]Strange, considering that some "thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent" finds are nearly complete skeletons. Perhaps they are unrevealing to you because you have not done an adequate journal search. Just a thought. [QUOTE][b]Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.[/QUOTE][/b]Hmmm bipedal hominids that are "apes" or "monkeys".Tell me, do you know the difference between a monkey and an ape? Your statement above has me concerned. [QUOTE][b]The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all.[/QUOTE][/b]Bring me a live Neanderthal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

​

Limnoscelis, Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus, Paleothyris

​

[QUOTE][b]or reptile to birds and mammals are represented[/QUOTE]

​

[/b]

​

Reptile to Mammal:

​

Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus cromptoni
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium, Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani
Vincelestes neuquenianus
Pariadens kirklandi
Kennalestes, Asioryctes
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops

​

(I'm tired of listing, so I'm going to use the Late Cretaceous as a stopping point)

​

By the way, who said birds are directly descended from reptiles?

---

oooooo..... all that Latin.....Anticipating Conspirator's response..... but there ARE NO TRANSITIONALS between the species/fossil's you named!!!!------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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.

[QUOTE][b]You are suggesting in one breath that order cannot come from
disorder, and then relying on it in the next.[/QUOTE][/b]Great observation!

ewwwww.... ickyYeah, tell me about it, but it isn't bad. It's not that slow and I hope to get a regular computer in the future, anyway...I hope you don't equate rebutting you arguments with not listening to you.Uh, what? If you mean that I don't listen to other people opinions in a debate, then you're wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...So we start off guilty? Is this cold war preemptive strike logic? Geez...Whatever. The reason that I didn't show you guys any respect is because I don't know how you people will react in a debate. Because I fail to see how I should've shown you any respect because of that and besides, once we do actually get debates going such as this it's obvious that we're going to respect each other one way or another. Whatever, let's just forget about as I do not want this to carry over even more and distract us from having this debate..Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters. Could you show me this evidence?You mentioned 'mutation' then quickly forgot about it. Genes do not replicate with 100% accuracy. There are errors, hence not all the genes match exactly the DNA of the parent organism(s).Gotcha'.Perhaps you can precisely define 'basic kind.' No one has yet to do so, that I can tell.I don't know if I can precisely define "basic kind," but I can tell you what I think it means. I think it means that a cat can never become anything other than a cat and that its "basic kind" can only be associated with cats. Like, a cat can never become anything like a dog that has cat's whisker's.. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?Are wolves dogs?Yes. What's your point?If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....How would it get altered in the first place? And how would it get altered at all? Oh, and sorry for asking all the questions..This is simply wrong. Not all mutations are harmful-- most are perhaps, but not all. One mutations for example, allows a bacteria to digest nylon-- not a bad trick when food is scarce.Yeah.. But why wouldn't the mutations that supposedly evolved us from a common ancestor be harmful instead of helpful?Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.Interesting...A wristwatch is a terrible analogy. For one, a wristwatch isn't self-replicating. Even the most simple organism is many times more complicated. Ever notice that a wristwatch isn't ALIVE?If you say so... And of course a wristwatch isn't alive.. Perhaps I should use another analogy...This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.I know...This is a very simplistic application of natural selection to human society. Look up a field of anthropology called 'cultural ecology' Human society is far more complicated than people killing each other and strangely enough, it all has adaptive value. Think about it. No one would live very long if we were driven solely by the desire to destroy the weak. Ever notice that everyone thinks that everyone else is inferior? So WHY would this trait be selected for? Or, more accurately, why would this be the only trait selected for? Why not some other traits as well, that tone down this violence? Your argument is inconsistent.Well, people still want to destroy the weak in this world... I mean, look at all the deaths in the wars and the power to suceed in anything... People want to crush the weak even today..Natural selection has no forethought at all. Eyes function at every level of evolution. At first as a vague light sensor, then as a little bit better sensor and so on. What you posit isn't evolution.I see.. Um, could you explain to me how the eye is a product of evolution?Are viruses alive? No bodies. No brains. No respiration. No digestion.Are viruses dead? Do they not eat people's bodies? So, they must be alive or else they wouldn't be able to do that..All a system needs is power and it will develop order of a sort. Take convection currents in a pot of water on the stove.But natural selection requires an organism to begin as crude and making it have disorder, then making it into an orderly system..How do you figure? Seem like they would be much better designed for the environment if they were created to live in it.How do I figure? Being created for the environment sounds the best to me.. Organisms adapt to environments. They don't evolve into it. I've never seen or heard about an organism that evolved into an environment...Why? The designer ran out of designs for molars?Because simillar patterns in organisms resulted in an organism being created. Natural selction couldn't've evolved them to the environment because that would've taken much more time than natural selection had time to do that in...Statements are not arguments. Care to elaborate?Ok. Natural selection is a disorderly system that supposedly evolved organisms into us which in turn are more orderly systems. How could natural selection have produced such variety in the world if organisms had to come from a disorderly system? It had to precisely evolve every organism in the world, yet I don't how that could've happened...Ok. ?You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.I'm not sure how to refute this...Sure it can. Humans are social creatures. Outside of society we don't survive well. But as you mentioned earlier, there is a tendency towards selfishness and barbarism. Emotions like love bond us together. Its a balancing act.I'm not sure about this either..That order an independence is a vicious arms race. It isn't some kind of utopia. Things kill other things-- a lot.Ok...Humans are animals.I know. Didn't we supposedly evolve from them too?Based on what?Based on the next to impossible chances of evolution ever having occured..All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.I don't know what you're saying here...These are descriptions of how things now work. They are not binding laws.Yes they are... How are they not?I spent five years in college studying anthropology/archeology. The process doesn't work like this. There is an enormous amount of measurement, comparison, math, geoscience, etc, etc....Wow, you're obviously very experienced in these discussions.. And just think.. I've been studying Creation/Evolution for close to 8 months already.. But I don't think that I'm inexperienced. I just need to get more information...And evolutionists corrected the problem as well.How?And you've analyzed the macro and microscopic wear patterns and the fracture patterns to determine that these are just rocks, not tools?No.. Perhaps I should do it..Again, there are distictive patterns which can be analyzed if care is taken to do so.Ok.So there are extinct hominids. Big deal. There are extinct horses, and extinct birds, and extinct whales.

​

Ancestor does not mean 'part human'
There aren't extinct hominids... And what exactly does Ancestor really mean?No one is going to argu this point. But so what?Then there's no use in typing what I said, was there?Wrong. Just wrong. All apes share a lot of charicteristics with humans. Monkeys share a bit fewer characteristics. Lemurs and lorises fewer still. All the way back to this little mouse-like thing with opposable thumbs.Interesting.. I'll try to get back to you on this..A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.Yeah, some monkeys have big skulls, little skulls, big hands, little hands, etc..Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.Which would be what, exactly?What final three? And stop with the part ape bit. The final three suppoed hominids of humans that were later revealed to be just humans and no part ape/money and human... And no, I won't stop with the "ape part bit."There is not a single complete and consistent flood model that can explain the rock strata, much less explain it better than mainstream geology.But there have been floods in the past that have been big...Where did you hear this? Animals generally require rapid burial to fossilize, and then a tremendous amount of time.I heard it from a site..A lot of fossils show just this sort of damage. Bacteria don't eat bone.What damage? And I didn't say that bacteria would eat the bone...But this pattern isn't found in the fossil record.

​

Besides which, smaller animals would be suspended by the currents for a longer period and would be deposited at the top.
Interesting.. And what pattern?But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.Not if they're dead...Not even close.How?ummm..... the fossils simply are in the rock sediment. How can you argue with this?Answer: I can't aruge with this.Like for example?I don't have any example right now..Where? Cite something. Roots do not count.I don't have a site as of now....Conspirator's lengthy post ranged across the topics of transitional fossils, natural selection, genetics, social consequences of accepting evolution, the origin of life, human origins and geology. There are separate forums for each of these topics, and when different topics are raised together then the appropriate forum is Miscellaneous Topics. Unless there is an objection, within a day or so I will move this thread to that forum.I don't care if you move it. I wasn't sure where to put this topic anyway, so you can move it in the Miscellaneous Forum if you want..First of all I want to state that with your opening post I think we all are going to find it difficult to grant you much respect. I will try. Whatever you say. I'll have to earn respect, then.I'm concerned about your background in evolution, because there are no theories that posit that animals descended from plants. You cannot blame a theory for a missing transitional that the theory never actually claims should exist!

​

The missing transitional Creationist argument is old and should be laid to rest. I will give examples of transitionals and include the link to the source I got it from.I'll try to provide evidence for my assumption about plants to animals soon if I can find a site that'll tell me about it... And that Creationist argument may be old, but it isn't as old as Evolutionists saying that some transitional forms are the missing links to evolution when they have already been proven that they aren't! That's what happened in one of my debates with an evolutionist..By the way, who said birds are directly descended from reptiles?
I did. Just kidding.. I don't know who said that as of right now..Every living thing is a transitional form. Fine..
You are wrong on three counts: Mutations are not always small, they are not always random, and they are not always harmful.
Mutations could, however, be random, small and harmful, could they?Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?Actually by eating meat we would be doing what our species is "designed" to do. The general idea is that you're only a murderer if you kill your own species. And the percent that the human genome is similar to the bovine genome is something like 85%... Food for thought.Failure to make a clear point.I made it clear..Social bonds facilitate survival amongst social/pack animals. ...Ok.Strange, considering that some "thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent" finds are nearly complete skeletons. Perhaps they are unrevealing to you because you have not done an adequate journal search. Just a thought. Nearly complete does not mean complete... And I have done adequate journal searches...Tell me, do you know the difference between a monkey and an ape? Your statement above has me concerned. Yes, I do.Bring me a live Neanderthal. How would one go about doing that? And I don't think anyone can do that today...You are suggesting in one breath that order cannot come from
disorder, and then relying on it in the next.How so?I'm getting kind of tired posting this right now, so I'll address the rest of Peter's questions later.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conspirator:
[b]The reason that I didn't show you guys any respect is because I don't know how you people will react in a debate.[/QUOTE][/b]Like I said, we start off guilty. [QUOTE][b]

quote:

---

Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters.

---

Could you show me this evidence?[/quote][/b]Well, for starters, this idea is embedded in the ToE. Evolution doesn't propose that creatures jump from one form to another in one huge leap, but that the characteristics of the individuals within a population change slowly over many generations.Evidence? You can follow the slow morphological changes of limbs all the way from pre-dinosaur ocean life to modern animals. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_01.htmlhttp://www.teaching-biomed.man.ac.uk/student_projects/2000/mnzo7cas/evolution.htmhttp://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/projects97/Kagle.html[QUOTE][b]I don't know if I can precisely define "basic kind," but I can tell you what I think it means.[/QUOTE][/b]A large part of your initial argument depends upon the concept of 'kinds' whether you realize it or not. That argument in indefensible if you cannot define 'kind' very specifically and give evidence to back it up. [QUOTE][b]John:Are wolves dogs?Yes. What's your point?[/QUOTE][/b]The point is to push you toward defining a 'kind'. Are house-cats and cheetahs the same kind, or different kinds? Are baboons and monkeys the same kind? Horses and donkeys?

quote:

---

John:If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....

​

How would it get altered in the first place? And how would it get altered at all?

---

Random mutation. This is a measurable effect. A chromosome is never copied perfectly. It is always being changed slightly by copying errors.

quote:

---

Yeah.. But why wouldn't the mutations that supposedly evolved us from a common ancestor be harmful instead of helpful?

---

Because the people who had the harmful mutations died. The people who had helpful mutations lived and reproduced, thereby passing along those mutations.Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02g.html

quote:

---

John:This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.

​

I know...

---

[/b]Then why use the argument you did against the ToE?

quote:

---

Well, people still want to destroy the weak in this world... I mean, look at all the deaths in the wars and the power to suceed in anything... People want to crush the weak even today..

---

Look at all the people who band together for a common good. The family is an example. Cities, states, governments, trade alliances....

quote:

---

I see.. Um, could you explain to me how the eye is a product of evolution?

---

http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.htmlhttp://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

quote:

---

Are viruses dead? Do they not eat people's bodies? So, they must be alive or else they wouldn't be able to do that..

---

Acid eats bodies. It isn't alive. Viruses actually don't eat in any real sense of the word anyway. They just reproduce. That's it. No eating, no drinking, no mating, no nothing. The point is to show you how fine the line is between living creatures and chemistry. We have today a class of organism-- the virus-- which doesn't meet most of the requirements for being a living organism. Why, then is it so hard to imagine abiogenesis?

quote:

---

But natural selection requires an organism to begin as crude and making it have disorder, then making it into an orderly system.

---

What? This sounds nothing like natural selection. [QUOTE][b]How do I figure? Being created for the environment sounds the best to me.. Organisms adapt to environments.[/QUOTE][/b]How do they adapt? This is the question evolution answers.

quote:

---

I've never seen or heard about an organism that evolved into an environment...

---

Sure you have. Bacteria are becoming dangerously resistant to our anti-bacterial drugs due to our extensive use of those drugs over last century. This is just the sort of 'evolution into an environment' you claim hasn't happened.

quote:

---

Because simillar patterns in organisms resulted in an organism being created.

---

This doesn't make sense. [QUOTE][b]Natural selction couldn't've evolved them to the environment because that would've taken much more time than natural selection had time to do that in...[/QUOTE][/b]hmmm.... have you done the math? Studied the math? Do you even know how much time we are dealing with?

quote:

---

Ok. Natural selection is a disorderly system that supposedly evolved organisms into us which in turn are more orderly systems.

​

---

You really need to get a grip on your terminology. Natural selection is NOT a disorderly system. Natural selection isn't even a system. The environment is a system. The planet is a system. Systems are collections of interelated parts, like a machine. The idea of natural selection describes a small part of the system. It describes how and which mutations accumulate in a population.

quote:

---

How could natural selection have produced such variety in the world if organisms had to come from a disorderly system?

---

Look around you!!! The planet is complicated but hardly disorderly. It is self-ordering, like marbles in a jar.

quote:

---

It had to precisely evolve every organism in the world, yet I don't how that could've happened...

---

The organisms you see today did not HAVE TO evolve. Billions of different organisms could have evolved. It just so happens that the one we see are the ones that actually did evolve.

quote:

---

John:You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.

​

I'm not sure how to refute this...

---

You should figure it out. This idea runs through several of your initial arguments. If you can't refute this, you have to drop those arguements.

quote:

---

I know. Didn't we supposedly evolve from them (animals) too?

---

We are animals who evolved from other animals.

quote:

---

Based on the next to impossible chances of evolution ever having occured..

---

And what are those odds? Have you done the math? How did you make the calculations?

quote:

---

All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.

​

I don't know what you're saying here...

---

[/b]You don't have to have a fully functioning cell pop out of the primordial slime. All that needs to happen is for a small molecule to start making copies of itself. Something like this one http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html That molecule via copying errors, slowly becomes more like what we think of as life.

quote:

---

Yes they are... How are they not?

---

Laws of science are descriptions of data. They are not binding. New data can cause the laws to be refined or otherwise modified. Newton's Laws of Gravity for example, don't work at the core of black hole. The black hole is not bound to obey them. Newton got the description wrong-- well, only partially right. Einstein did much better by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. Better? Einstein's equations describe more of the data than Newton's equations do.

quote:

---

There aren't extinct hominids...

---

Yes, there are.Australopithicus afarensis
Australopithicus africanus
Australopithicus robustus
Australopithicus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo Neanderthalensis

quote:

---

And what exactly does Ancestor really mean?

---

Anscestor means 'those organisms from whom the organism in question descended'

quote:

---

John:
A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.

​

Yeah, some monkeys have big skulls, little skulls, big hands, little hands, etc..

---

Its more complicated than that. Size isn't the best indicator of descent. But there are countless measurable traits that can be tracked. Things like peculiar cranial features that persist through hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

quote:

---

John:Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.

​

Which would be what, exactly?

---

You objected that no supposedly human skulls had been found outside the range of other types of primate. Assuming you are talking about the distant past (because now human skulls can be found in place where other primates don't live), you would expect to find pre-modern human skulls in exactly those places where other primates lived at the time.

quote:

---

The final three suppoed hominids of humans that were later revealed to be just humans and no part ape/money and human... And no, I won't stop with the "ape part bit."

---

Care to name those 'final three'?There is no such thing as a part ape/monkey part human. There never was and no one claims there was. We are talking about the Island a Dr. Moreau. There were a string of anscestor critters, but they were no more part ape part human than a wolf is part dog.

quote:

---

But there have been floods in the past that have been big...

---

A big flood is not a global flood. Maybe you don't realize the significance of the difference, both scientifically and theologically.

quote:

---

What damage? And I didn't say that bacteria would eat the bone...

---

Damage? Scarring patterns suggesting that the animal had been killed by predators or gnawed on my scavengers.You suggested that a carcass would be destroyed by bacteria if it were not fossilized rapidly. Bacteria do not destroy bone. This portion of the argument fails.

quote:

---

Interesting.. And what pattern?

---

The PATTERN YOU DESCRIBED!!!! ..... the circulating water of the flood (along with gravity)would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the abilty to temporarily avoid the flood, woudl be buried close to the top.You described the order of fossils in the geological record as you feel it would occur in the event of depostion by flood. This is not the pattern observed in the actual strata.

quote:

---

But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.

​

Not if they're dead...

---

You've missed the point. The fish would be some of the last creatures to die and so would deposit at the top. [QUOTE][b]How?[/QUOTE][/b]There is no evidence at all pointing towards a global flood.... none.... zero.....

quote:

---

Like for example?

​

I don't have any example right now..

---

Then don't bring it up. Are you just spewing out something you heard?Back up what you say. That's all I ask.

quote:

---

Where? Cite something. Roots do not count.

​

I don't have a site as of now....

---

Then don't bring it up. Are you just spewing out something you heard?Back up what you say. That's all I ask.

quote:

---

I'll try to provide evidence for my assumption about plants to animals soon if I can find a site that'll tell me about it...

---

Plants and animals diverged from common stock not one from the other.

quote:

---

Mutations could, however, be random, small and harmful, could they?

---

Of course, happens a lot I imagine.quoteFailure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?[/quote]http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm[QUOTE][b]And I have done adequate journal searches...[/QUOTE]I doubt that.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][b]Could you show me this evidence?[/QUOTE][/b]That populations change? Look around you.Antibiotic resistance, Porto Santo rabbits, Kaibab squirrels, peppered moths. Dogs from wolves. Domesticated crops. A couple of weeks ago I read a news clipping in Science about gene flow between Galapagos finches. [QUOTE][b]Like, a cat can never become anything like a dog that has cat's whisker's..[/QUOTE][/b]Why not? [QUOTE][b]How would it get altered in the first place? And how would it get altered at all?[/QUOTE][/b]Exposure to nuclear or electromagnetic radiation, like UV light will do it. Certain chemicals will also. Since most cancers are caused by mutations in somatic cells you can use "anything that can cause cancer" as a basic rule of thumb to what will generate a mutation. [QUOTE][b]Oh, and sorry for asking all the questions..[/QUOTE][/b]That's fine, learning about the issues is really the whole point of the debate. I don't mind answering questions. [QUOTE][b]Yeah.. But why wouldn't the mutations that supposedly evolved us from a common ancestor be harmful instead of helpful?[/QUOTE][/b]For the record, most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful--they do nothing. But the ones that cause adaptations are, by definition, helpful. The reason good mutations always outnumber bad ones is natural selection. Bad mutations are usually not transmitted to offspring, but good ones almost always are. It's like being able to remove anything bad and deliberately spreading the good. That is why things can only go uphill even though some mutations are bad. [QUOTE][b]I know...[/QUOTE][/b]Then why did you even mention it if you know it is irrelevant? [QUOTE][b]People want to crush the weak even today..[/QUOTE][/b]Actually most of those people just want to advance themselves and end up crushing the "weak" in the process. That is simple irresponsibility or a lack of ethics. [/QUOTE][b]I see.. Um, could you explain to me how the eye is a product of evolution?[/QUOTE][/b]Sure. They started out as the ability to detect light in microbial life. A byproduct of that was that they began to be able to detect motion. Motion detection was useful so it got better. Then as a byproduct of motion detection primitive images could be formed (this is about the level of squid). Images allow you to grab food so the images get sharper, and so on. First you have a pinhole camera type eye, then the covering membrane thickens in the middle to form a lens, muscles in the back strengthen so they eye can swivel, until you end up with primate eyes--which, interestingly, are not the best in the animal kingdom.That is a few hundred million years of optical evolution condensed into a paragraph, a crude outline of how it could have happened. [QUOTE][b]Are viruses dead? Do they not eat people's bodies? [/QUOTE][/b]No, virii are just genetic material in protein envelopes. They are incapable of metabolism on their own. They hijack cells and use them to make more viruses. The only real 'life' involved is the infected cell. Viruses are really no more alive than a protein crystal or a piece of bare DNA. [QUOTE][b]Based on the next to impossible chances of evolution ever having occured[/QUOTE][/b]How do you figure that? Because it seems to me that it is impossible for it not to occur.

[QUOTE][b]I don't know what you're saying here...[/QUOTE][/b]He means that evolution can occur even without life as we know it. Even virii can (and do) evolve. All that is necessary is a molecule that can make copies of itself and evolution starts. I suspect that probably the first cells or protocells were several such molecules living together symbiotically. [QUOTE][b]But natural selection requires an organism to begin as crude and making it have disorder, then making it into an orderly system.[/QUOTE][/b]This goes back to only good mutations spreading in a population. Because increases in disorder will usually kill an organism, order tends to increase.(An aside: order can decrease if it allows greater fitness for an organism. Evolution always works toward greater fitness, and sometimes toward greater order. Do not try to imagine evolution as always being an increase in order, that would be inaccurate.) [QUOTE][b]How would one go about doing that? And I don't think anyone can do that today...[/QUOTE][/b]Then why do you believe that Neanderthals are human? If they are, why can't you find one today? [QUOTE][b]Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?[/QUOTE][/b]Begging the question -- use of the conclusion as a starting assumption. [QUOTE][b]How?[/QUOTE][/b]By detecting and exposing the fraud. No Creationist I am aware of has ever exposed a fraud in the scientific community, they just sit on the sidelines and then make up their own ideas. [QUOTE][b]And that Creationist argument may be old, but it isn't as old as Evolutionists saying that some transitional forms are the missing links to evolution when they have already been proven that they aren't![/QUOTE][/b]Who "proved" what and how? [QUOTE][b]Not if they're dead...[/QUOTE][/b]Then did Noah have an aquarium on the ark?How did coral reefs survive? And how did you get one in New Mexico and another one in Texas? [QUOTE][b]Ok. Natural selection is a disorderly system that supposedly evolved organisms into us which in turn are more orderly systems. How could natural selection have produced such variety[/QUOTE][/b]Natural selection does not produce variety, it filters bad mutations from the gene pool. Mutations produce variety. [QUOTE][b]Because simillar patterns in organisms resulted in an organism being created.[/QUOTE][/b]What? [QUOTE][b]The final three suppoed hominids of humans that were later revealed to be just humans and no part ape/money and human...[/QUOTE][/b]And which hominids were these? I want to check you on this. [QUOTE][b]But there have been floods in the past that have been big...[/QUOTE][/b]Yeah, and they left evidence. This one is global. Difference between "big" and global. I've yet to see some river town covered with 22,000 ft of water but that is what it would take to cover Everest. [QUOTE][b]Nearly complete does not mean complete...[/QUOTE][/b]It does not have to be complete to show transitional features. You only need the skull to know what species it is and if it walked upright. I think you don't give paleoanthropology nearly enough credit. [QUOTE][b]And I have done adequate journal searches...[/QUOTE][/b]Then you should have shared your cites with us.