Living fossils expose evolution

Coyote: Here we go again; wasting time on 'kind'. If you say that again I will merely put you on ignore. I have answered it REPEATEDLY.I am not going to do it again.

Dear Mr. Administrator:I will move on to another topic.

That is exactly my position. You confirmed what I said earlier. Thank you. The same will be true in the matter of 'living fossils'. So many will be found that belief in evolution will seem ludicrous.I am finished on this thread.

You still don't get it. You don't have any evidence. The only thing evolution has going for it is a wrongful interpretation based on tortured reasoning. It's a myth.Now we're moving on to something else. Edited by Calypsis4, : correction..'an' to 'a'.

No, no, no; the statement I made was that there was a consensus of opinion for decades that vertebrates would not be found in the Cambrian. But those holding that position were forced to change it during the mid-1990's because of discoveries that revealed otherwise.Again, I am moving on to another topic.Have a nice day.

You are joking, right? I'm not.

My, what a brave thing to say for a person who just stepped in to the tail end of this debate. Never mind the fact that I have spent almost every waking moment of the last three days typing as fast as I could to answer questions. I'm sure she feels she made an open-minded assessment of the situation but her attitude is an excellent example of how human prejudice works. She didn't even seem to notice that I am the only creationist on this thread against about 15 to 20 opponents, all of whom expect me to answer their questions! Well, I tried but I cannot keep up no matter how fast I go. I do have other responsibilities here in the office and the phone rings often.I will answer by saying that my opponents are focused on classification and they refuse to consider the much bigger and more important issue: there is no change, or perhaps significant difference between....twin sisters (as may be the case)...cousins (as may be the case)...or even distant relatives (as may be the case). Differences between the kinds of organisms did not stop the observers from recognizing a gliding lizard from a (guess what?) gliding lizard!My opponents expect me to treat the Linneaus classification system and my position on 'kind' as if it were the infallible scriptures of God. It isn't.Let me show you something.Taxonomy (biology) - WikipediaI would ask you kindly to find this website on Wikipedia and scroll down until you see the seven different classification systems in the scientific world.Linnaeus
1735
Haeckel
1866
Chatton
1937
Copeland
1956
Whittaker
1969
Woese et al.
1977
Woese et al.
1990Now, which one should I trust in? Which one should I use? Which one is infallible (without error)? Which one is not subject to human opinion? You all know the answer to that.

Another brave statement. You would say that if I remained here for another week.

DEAR MR ADMINISTRATOR:I don't intend to post any more evidence against evolution on this thread as I stated earlier but please permit me to answer some questions that keep coming my way.I suppose I could go on and commit massive overkill but most of the posters have made up their minds and I am not going to convince them even if I go ahead and post a hundred or more illustrations of the non-evolution of biological organisms.

Thanks very much. But I think I will have to stick with 'family' even though the boundaries of 'kind' are not always as clear and fit neatly into place in our minds. This will be determined by more research and the boundaries will become clearer in time.

Well, if this... does not amount to 'viable' then it's certainly the next thing to it. A 68 million yr old T-Rex with soft tissue/blood cells that are 'spongy'? But the truth is (at least according to evolutionists BEFORE the soft tissue discoveries) that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 yrs ago.* So when will the fairy tales end? The stories just keep getting more ridiculous.This is even more damaging than the 'living fossils' matter. But evolutionists are doing what the always do: change the time frame as it concerns the survival of living tissue. They will not challenge the paradigm: millions/billions of yrs.*(Morell, V. 1993, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. Science. 261 (5118):160.)

That's like telling Columbus, "You haven't proven the world is round because you didn't complete a journey around the globe!"Right. Yes, there are and I intend to utilize them. It's high time that those who have lived in this fairy tale dream wake up and smell the coffee. "as predicted by evolution"? No, don't even go there. Evolutionists 100 yrs ago did not know this was going to happen.Do you recall the illustration of the Model-T with the Lamborghini? My point was that if I wanted to prove to school students the 'evolution' of modern vehicles machines called 'cars' then I could do so easily with written records, photos, and perhaps a visit to a museum revealing the stages of development through the years. But what is easy to do with cars is impossible with evolution. The evidence simply isn't there and what scant evidence they do have is highly in question. Even evolutionists can't agree on what's what:Which is the real 'Zinjanthropus'? Eeny, meeny, miny, moe... catch an ape men by his toe.

No, just the opposite. The fact that there is so much direct, visible evidence and you turn your nose up to it is astounding.Why do you believe in this fairy tale the the world made itself, assembled life by blind natural processes, and then 'evolved' life when the evidence clearly runs counter to such a preposterous notion?

Thanks for an thoughtful assessment of classification.One of the problems in classifying fossils (including living fossils) is the obscurity of some samples; i.e. the crayfish example. This is not uncommon as many fossils are so badly damaged by nature and/or accidentally by the geologists who discovered them.Information as it comes from nature comes in many forms, but specificity helps us to identify the difference between natural and non-natural.For instance:The degree of specificity in information can determine the difference between this: and this: Since science has pretty much determined by yrs of observation that the face on Mars is merely natural but the faces on Mt. Rushmore are not. Why? Because nature has never been observed making faces like as are seen on Mt. Rushmore, at least nothing to that degree of specificity. We can easily identify what was developed on Mt. Rushmore many yrs ago because of the specificity and that those faces are comparable to human beings with well known features. But the photo of the face on Mars never did have enough specificity to be identified with any known person.Question: If presented with a photo of this could we identify this as legitimate? I think I can safely say most people would regard the first photo evidence as a legitimate representation of Mt. Rushmore based upon the experience of countless millions of observers. But the second photo would not/should not be so regarded because empirical investigation by the same countless millions who have seen Mt. Rushmore have never seen a face that looks like Smeagol in Lord of the Rings.The Smeagol insertion instantly causes the face scenario on Mt. Rushmore to be of a totally different ‘kind’ or (‘family’ if you please). But what is true about this is not true about the crayfish and other examples posted on this thread. It was immediately identified as a 'crayfish' by all who observed it. We can bicker and dicker about classification but if observation of the evidence is of any true value then there has been no evolutionary change in the organisms so depicted. The living fossils speak loud and clear: no evolution in biological organisms.

'What evidence?'Excuse me? Oh, about 40 examples I have given on this website and another 150 I have not posted yet. The Internet is full of them but you and those of your persuasion choose to ignore it. "Columbus, why don't you REALLY prove the world is round by taking us all the way next time?"Right.You really do want me to commit massive overkill on this subject, don't you? But truth is truth whether one chooses to believe the truth or not.Nonetheless, concerning the bat.The oldest fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old. Now would you please reveal to us evidence of the transitional forms leading to this bat? If you can then it will be something no one else has ever done. ALL of the transitions are missing.Show the readers that THIS has occurred in nature... Now, perhaps you can give all kinds of clever arguments but you cannot reveal the evolution of the bat. It appears abruptly in the fossil record and bats (about 100 species) are still bats: they have not changed except for the variations within the kind.Now, why is such an intelligent person like you having such a hard time grasping this?