Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils

I have been lurking here for at least six months, but had to jump in when I saw that my old buddy "ksc" (AKA Karl, Karl Crawford, and kc) was posting.Folks, I should warn you that you are all out of your depth here. You can not win an argument with kc. You don't believe me? He's quite famous actually. Go to Google and do a search of "Karl Crawford" and "Creationism". Many people have accounts of their frustrations in dealing with him. Personally, I engaged him at CARM, NAIG, and the old OCW (under a different persona). I found the experience to be very, very frustrating, and so I finally gave it up. I have also seen others engage him with no success.The key problem is that logic and common sense are totally thrown out the window (as you probably surmised from his responses thus far). He will post the same argument over and over, regardless of how many times you rebut it. He KNOWS that he is right and you are wrong, so any apparent points that you make in your favor are disregarded, since they can't possibly be correct.Incidentally, if you want to see something truly comical, see his debate at OCW (mostly with Gallo) on the Oklo natural reactor in Gabon. He just kept repeating the same thing over and over, despite being shown multiple times that he was wrong. You will find a few more similar documented examples in you do the Google search. Here's the link: http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3cd5952004b6ff ff;act=ST;f=26;t=65;st=0Anyway, good luck debating him. Don't say I didn't warn you!FK

​

[This message has been edited by Fedmahn Kassad, 05-05-2002]

I read through some of your links. That's Karl, no doubt about it. Posting the same arguments over and over, ignoring all rebuttals, and then complaining that nobody can answer his points. On the other hand, when you ask him a question, he gives some vague and implausible response, and after that insists that he already answered that and refuses to provide additional details.It would be sort of funny, if I didn't know he was dead serious. But as I said, he has been around these debates a long time, and has a long history of this. Don't expect him to go away anytime soon. Just be sure you understand his tactics and make sure you understand his game. He sees himself as a Crusader for Christ, and it is his duty to demolish the claims of all the "atheistic evos". Honest debate is apparently not a prerequisite.FK

I have been searching for a reference that should shut Karl up. Maybe someone here remembers seeing the article. Sometime last year, I read an article at a Creationist site — maybe AIG or ICR, about fruit flies and morphology. They claimed that in some cases two fruit flies only shared 25% of their DNA in common, but the basic morphology remained the same. They were trying to demonstrate that a fruit fly would never be anything other than a fruit fly. But, if the article was correct, it demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE for an organism to undergo tremendous amounts of evolution and still maintain the same basic form. It all depends upon which parts of the DNA got mutated, and how these changes affected the survivability of the organism.In the case of the coelacanth, Karl is right about one thing. We can hardly expect that the DNA didn’t change over these millions of years. Sure it did. But as many others have pointed out, and as I have attempted to reiterate in the paragraph above, it is possible for a large amount of evolution to occur without affecting the basic morphology. It is not likely, but then again it apparently hasn’t occurred too many times. This is what you would expect, given an unlikely event but millions of chances (species) for it to occur.To take an old (and very worn) line from Karl, NEXT!FK

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
Notice: Untill the evos present realistic answers to the questions as to why the Coelacanth and the other living fossils have not changed I will terminate this discussion and present the topic again at a later date when an answer could possibly be presented.
Unfortunatly for the sciences of evolution...they don't have to change...is an inadequate answer.

​

I was aksed to give reason why the Coelacanth would need to change and presented valid reasons employing the evos own theory.

​

For those that had responded to this topic, I thank you for your responces. Perhaps at a later date you'll have answers to help prop up the T.O.E., but as for now, evolution has another weakness it must overcome.

---

Karl, you never once attempted to present any evidence that the DNA of the coelacanth has NOT changed substantially over millions of years. You have tried to equate genotype with phenotype, which is not always a good assumption. If you had even a small clue about biology, you would recognize your error. As it stands, you have just demonstrated your old, tired trick of present an assertion, repeatedly ignore the rebuttals, and then claim victory. Of course you hinted at the next step which I have also seen you do repeatedly: Regurgitate your argument unchanged at a later date and claim that it has never been refuted.