Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?Do not post another website.Do not argue related or unrelated topics.Do not preach a sermon to me.DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..Yes or no?Pick one.

Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?Do not post another website.Do not argue related or unrelated topics.Do not preach a sermon to me.DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..Yes or no?Pick one.

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

"Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?Yes or No?Do not post another website.Do not argue related or unrelated topics.Do not preach a sermon to me.DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..Yes or no?Pick one."I quote Schraf, of course. An honest debater would simply have answered the bloody question, & would have done so an age ago. A dishonest one wouldn't have. Where does that leave you Kenny my boy?Mark

Okay, kendemeyer, you want someone to talk about the fossil record, so I will try. Most of this post is a short essay that I sometimes paste into message boards; I may have already pasted it here - sorry if this is a repeat.The quotes that you provide, kedemyer, are either out of date or taken out of context. In actual fact, the fossil record is excellent evidence of Darwinian evolution.The fossil record is full of transitional forms. We believe that species have evolved from previous species, and so we should see in the fossil record evidence of species that show evidence of having characteristics between modern species and previous species.This is exactly what we see. The most wonderfully complete record of evolution is that of human beings from an early bipedal ape. In this graphic we have examples of skulls from purported human ancestors. Skull A is a modern chimpanzee - it is shown to demonstrate how Skull B, from an Austalopethicine, is very ape-like and definitely not human. Skull N is modern human. Note that the skulls in between show a very smooth transition between B to N, without any gaps. It is also true that the skulls are dated to the correct times. This is predicted by evolution. Kathleen Hunt has written a short article listing in detail transitional forms between different major groups of animals. In particle, there is a particularly detailed list of species showing the transition from reptiles to mammals. Note that these species, found as fossils, show the correct intermediate steps and are found in strata with the proper ages. It is interesting to note that we see the transformation of the reptilian jaw joint into the mammalian inner ear, which is something creationists always insisted was impossible.Fossils have also been discovered that give a nice series of transitionals between land mammals and modern whales.Another interesting website is the Palaeos site. It also contains some really cool cladograms. Start here at Sarcopterygii, the group of fish that include the ancestors of modern tetrapods (and so is the clade that contains tetropods). Scroll to the bottom of the cladogram and click on Reptilomorpha. Note if you scroll to the bottom there is Synapsida (although the link is actually in the box at the top of the page). At the bottom of this cladograms is the Mammalia (again, the actual link is in the box at the top). Scroll down. Congatulations: you have just gone through the entire evolutionary history of fish to modern mammals. Every name you saw on the cladogram represents an actual fossil species, carefully placed in the proper place in the cladogram based on age and a careful description of its morphology! Look at the really nice descriptions of the fossils; one of the best is a section on one of the proto-mammals, Morganucontidae. The descriptions show, I hope, that these phylogenic trees, and the claim that these fossils are transitionals, aren't arbitrary - they have exactly the right characteristics to be place where they are in the phylogenic trees, and they have the right "in-betweenness" to count as transitionals between two different groups of animals.So, in this respect, a prediction of evolution is born out in the fossil record. Can creationism explain these transitions, beyond simply saying that the creator simply created all these species because of whimsy? For instance, right now there is very little fossil evidence that link bats to their non-flying ancestors. My evolutionist prediction is that if and when these fossils are discovered, they will clearly link bats with more primitive tree dwelling mammals, distantly related to primates. No transitionl fossils will be found that are "in-between" bats and birds. What predictions can creationism make? Does belief a creator necessarily imply that such fossils will be found? If evolution predicts them, and creationism makes no predictions, what will it mean if and when such fossils are found?

re: lineup of skullsA website declares:"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, Nature 2001.It should be noted, that Henry Gee is a believer in Evolution...."taken from: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/Earlyman.htmlSincerely,Ken

"Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?

I see the usual attempt at misrepresentation. The Henry Gee quote does not deny that the fossil evidence is sufficient to concluse that humans are the product of evolution.- as you would have us believe.But then you've never read that statement in context, have you ?All you've done is copy material from a website which says what you would like to be true without doing any real research at all. I suppose if you want to "support" creationism or "Biblical inerrancy" that is the best you can manage.

Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.Do not argue related or unrelated topics.Do not preach a sermon to me.DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..Yes or no?Pick one.

Kendemyer, you are avoiding the issue.First, look at the line of skulls. There is a clear gradual transformation from an obvious ape skull to modern humans. The difference between any two adjacent skulls is less than the difference between skulls that creationists accept as human. You want evidence for evolution. This is it. How does creationists explain these obvious transitionals? Did God create everyone of these species, thereby making hard to tell the difference between "ape-kind" and "human-kind"? Are all these skulls part of "human-kind", so that some ancient humans were indistinguishabe from apes? Hiding behind out-of-context quotes is not going to get you off the hook - it is just going to make you look bad.And you haven't even said anything about any of the other examples I provided. Your initial claim is that there is no evidence in the fossil record for evolution. I have provided several different examples to show that your claim is false; there are clear examples of evolutionary lineages in the fossil record verifying evolution as a correct explanation for the history of life. And as more fossils are discovered, the "gaps" that creationists keep talking about keep disappearing.

re: whales: Fossils | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis To Make a Tail for a Whale | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Sincerely,Ken

Oops. I posted this link in the wrong thread. It belongs here.Moral: don't trust AiG.Hmm. Just posting links doesn't seem very fun to me. Wouldn't you like to actually discuss something, kendemeyer?

In regards to the second law of thermodynamics and the earth being an open system:http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/menton/om5.htmSincerely,Ken

From the linked article: This is false.A complex adult human being starts out as a single cell at conception. There is no machine involved.Kendemeyer, what do you know about the second law of thermodynamics? Can you state why the second law precludes evolution? Before you answer this, please tell us what you know about the second law of thermodynamics. In particular, please try to answer these questions. I have some physics training, and I can say I see no contradiction between the second law and evolution.

Kendemeyer,please explain why the examples I provided of transitional fossils are not good evidence for evolution.Providing a link to AiG is not good enough.[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-07-2004]

Oops!You posted a link.I do not want a ink.I want a simple answer to a simple question.Your reply should be ONE WORD.Choose from YES or NO.Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.Do not preach a sermon to me.DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION..Yes or no?Pick one.