Living fossils expose evolution

For the other readers: I have been avoiding 'Dr. Adequate' because of his continual put-downs and condescending attitude. This nit-picking over non-essential details does not merit replies to his position nor will he get one from me.He knew exactly what I was talking about in 'water breathing' organisms. Everyone knows that marine creatures survive on oxygen in the water. I have known that since I was in grade school. But it appears that I cannot communicate in any sort of common colloquial expression without his crticial scrutiny. Therefore he will be ignored. Such tactics only detract from the issue anyway.

It didn't take you long to stop being nice did it?I am not 'dodging' anything. But I am the only 6 day creationist on this thread and I can't possibly answer every single poster who comes at me with questions. It is just impossible.The progression of the fossils. Fossils are constantly being found that are 'out-of-place' according to the evolutionary geologic time scale. For instance: This is a fossil fish found in China discovered in Cambrian rock. That era is dated 500 million yrs by evolutionists and we are told that there were no vertebrates living during that time. Actually, what has been found in China alone in the last 20 yrs is enough to upset the entire fabric of evolutionary times scales but western scientists in particular are looking the other way.Going further;

Thank you for your respectful question. I will respectfully answer you:Why, at this point of the debate would this be in question? It is simply a matter of revealing just how much evidence against evolutionary change in living organisms is available and that that evidence is direct, observational, and repeatable. The fossil organisms that I have posted in comparison with their living offspring, although not always the same species are certainly within the same family and they reveal no change. One can easily recognize almost all of them by appearance alone. If evolution were true then why are there so many hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of the species while there is virtually nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms?The few examples that my opponents have posted are both pitiful and highly suspect at best. None of us who converted from evolution take those examples seriously any longer because we learned in our studies the details of those discoveries and how the facts have been manipulated to fit the theory.I hope this answers it. Have a nice day.

That statement is erroneous. Yes, whales are marine mammals that breathe oxygen from the atmosphere directly. Most other marine creation take in water and their lungs absorb the oxygen in the water."A fish breathes by absorbing oxygen from the water it drinks. Water flows into the mouth, through the gills, and out of the body through gill slits. As water flows through the gills, the oxygen it contains passes into blood circulating through gill structures called filaments and lamellae. At the same time, carbon dioxide in the fish’s bloodstream passes into the water and is carried out of the body." msn encarta.

No they are not. Answered that already...repeatedly to you and to other posters. It should be obvious. Why it isn't is not my problem.Have a nice day.

I am not letting you get under my skin.I will let the moderator decided if the personal attack is within the rules of this board.Nonetheless, have a nice day.

The very fact that you are not aware of what has transpired in China reveals just how well western scientific community has ignored the discoveries there. But I have read plenty of it on the Internet alone.The statement from Wikipedia represents a big shift in evolutionary explanations which for decades was that there were no vertebrates in the Cambrian period. I have personally read and listened to many public debates on this point alone and evolutionists took the position that there were no vertebrates in the Cambrian.Even so, what Wikipedia says does not explain the abrupt appearance of complex life in the Cambrian because there are no transitionals leading up to it.

"Can you actually identify the erroneous part of the statement? Specifically."Yes, thinking that I thought that whales 'breathe' water. I did not say that nor do I believe such a thing.

That is purely your opinion. I disagree.1. Magnolias; The magnolias were of the same family. Why did you bring this up? (Me: 1, you:zero)
2. Nautilus: why did you bring this up? (Me: 2, you: zero)
3. Crayfish: You didn't tell the truth. You cannot determine that the fossil crayfish is a different kind than what was posted in the picture because it is too obscure to determine the details.
4. bat: Nope, you are dead wrong and I posted a detailed diagram of a skeleton that one can make a point by point comparison. (Me: 3, you: zero)
5. Scropionflies: different SPECIES, not different family. (Me 4, you: zero)
6. gliding lizards: we will arm wrestle over this one. I answered this that scientists in different parts of the world classify it differently. (secondly, don't give me a condescending attitude by telling me that 'in case you don't know, Orders are above Families in the classification system'...something I taught for 26 yrs and memorized since the 7th grade.)
7. possums: That's nuts! Then the evolutionists have classified Gobiconodon in error because the fossil and the modern skeleton are virtually identical!
8. Brittle stars: You don't read carefully. The illustration I posted said, 'Ophiarachenella' (species undetermined). I claim this point because the fossil and the living offspring are identical. (Me: 5, you: zero).
9. Tigers & Hyenas: I made the point that if there was a mistake here then it was that AOL posted a hyena skull in the tiger section of its 'pictures of tigers' format. They are very similar. (Me:5, you: 1)Have a nice day.

Sure. Land animals drown by breathing water into their lungs. Marine creatures (whale types excluded) 'drown' by breathing oxygen directly from the atmosphere. So how did the first marine creatures that came to land (long before whales 'evolved' on to the land and later back into the ocean) survive their first exposure to the atmosphere and what genetic mechanism changes things so that they can do so.I can answer that for you: No one knows because such a thing is not developing among marine creatures in our world for observation.

Now, proceeding with even more evidence that biological evolution has never occurred in our world: Then this: Again, organisms that show no change despite the 'millions of years' that have supposedly transpired.

Introduction of another example hidden. Discussion should try to focus on a single example. I'll choose the example if participants do not. --AdminEdited by Calypsis4, : correctionEdited by Admin, : Hide content.Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment.

Why? I think my point was succinct. No further discussion on that is needed.

Then perhaps the classification of the fossil is wrong. Don't ever think that the Linneaus classification system in the same terms as Christians regard scripture. It is not infallible.But let me ask you to show the differences between Hoplopteryx Lewisensis and Hoplostethus atlanticus. List them.

Sometimes, no I don't. With reason. One must remember that classification is based purely upon human opinion and human opinion is not infallible. Don't call them 'frigin' names. Attitude. The family name of the bat posted in the OP was not given. Again, it is virtually identical with the skeleton diagram posted below it. But you wish to focus on a non-essential. The point is: where is the evolutionary change in bats...period? Both are bats...do you deny that? Why are there no stages of bats leading up to and away from the bat kind in 50 million yrs? All we find in the fossil record are bats; no in between stages are found anywhere. Hide example. Calypsis, please stop introducing new examples. Please choose a single example and maintain focus on the issues surrounding that example until some meaningful discussion can take place. In other words, please stop changing horses in mid ride. --AdminBut what disturbs me is that you didn't say one word about the third example on the page I posted which is listed 'unidentified species'. So the observer is left to choose which of the two examples is most like the fossil example but you were so quick to take potshots at me after such a cursory examination of what I posted that you ignored it completely!Have a nice day. Edited by Admin, : Hide yet another example.Edited by Admin, : Add comment about hidden portion.