Summations Only

Well, you were the one who wrote it. Do you have a count? Any?Just to refresh our memories what you are talking about. Can you document any?

Well, I've heard there is no transitionals between ANY two "kinds" of animals. If this is true, then why do you need to ask specifically about invertebrates and vertebrates?HBD

Says the guy who believes:

quote:

---

But life on earth is only 5778 years old - not enuf time for macroevolution to occur

---

And I agree there is no need to believe any of that. Evolution leads some of us to conclusions and creationism leads others to believe useless delusions.

That is a YEC belief, one which is not supported by evidence.See RAZD's threads on dating for the details.

It would be pointless because I'm not qualified to understand that level of biology. Chicko's explanation (via psychomosis) failed for the same reason. I would have to spend four years at university getting a degree in biology to understand what you're on about, I suspect.

Do you realize that vertebrates are only one phylum and that invertebrates make up the other 33 or so phyla?Were you under the impression that Phylum Chordata evolved from some super-phylum Invertebrata or something?....oh, dumb question, you think knowledge is useless.

While I really have to question if Dredge has actually heard that or is just making stuff up again.But the issue is really silly anyway. The concept of a vertebrate and even the modern members of that classification include all the cartilaginous fish and as anyone who has ever collected shark teeth knows, cartilage does not fossilize often. Early members of the vertebrate lineage would be unlikely to leave fossilized skeletal evidence.Evidence of early notochords does exist however despite what creationists might wish.But this is all just another attempt by the Creationist Conmen to palm the pea, fool the rubes, misdirect attention for the pickpockets.It has nothing to do with the fact that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, with the fact of evolution or the fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the variety of life seen in the past and in the present.Creationism is simply another conjob.

I can believe that life on earth is only 5778 years old and still become a competent biologist who could potentially tackle any task in applied biology. This would prove a) creationists are not anti-science, and b) the "information" that humans and apes had a common ancestor is as useless as a fairy tale.

Like I said:

quote:

---

creationism leads others to believe useless delusions.

---

Your lack of imagination and/or close-mindedness is not a valid argument.

hhhmm?? What is it YOU are on about? The way creationists could prove they are not anti-science is to follow the evidence where ever it leads. They can't though. They MUST start with a conclusion and shoehorn the evidence to fit. Which is clearly anti-science.HBD

I'm sick to death of this lying crap. It's bad enough coming from an atheist but from someone who says he's a Christian it's more than offensive. The EVIDENCE for a genuine Christian is WHAT GOD SAYS. You don't start anywhere else if you care about the truth. That IS the evidence you follow, that's where you start. There is nothing anti-science about starting from a known truth. Which YOU SHOULD SHARE.; But who cares if you or anyone else shares it, a Christian should know it is the truth and that is where all truth starts, including scientific investigations.I'm sick of the constant same old same old here. The same old stupid misrepresentations of creationism in particular. The same old stupid accusations of creationists and conservatives. The same old meanness of the Left they project on the Right. Blech.,And nobody here has the wit to do anything in response to this either except vomit out the same old lying crap. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What is offensive is hearing someone who professes to be a Christian say stuff like "The EVIDENCE for a genuine Christian is WHAT GOD SAYS."What God said is not written in the Bible but rather in the rocks and stars and genetics and when those things disagree with what the Bible stories say then a genuine Christian knows it is the rocks and stars and genetics that superseded anything written in the Bible. But there is an explicit dishonesty in declaring the Bible to be a TRUTH.

Well, I can think of an obvious cure for your sickness

This is what is crap! I do believe what God says! What I don't believe is what Faith says, or Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind, or ANY if these creationists who have to make up stuff to support their personal views.So Blech! yourself.HBD