A fatal logical flaw in creationism?

Guys, you know this one isn't worth the effort. There are no particular reasoning skills here and almost no reading skills.But, if you're having fun.... [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-21-2004]

A very nice post, Loudmouth, but you've used rather a lot of big words. I do not mean this as a slight to Des. At an introductory level you need to make it simpler and clearer.E.g., "Phylogeny"
Though you indirectly explain this term subsequently it's very presence is possibly, a show stopper for someone new to all of this and without much to build on. Let me try:If todays living things got here by evolutionary steps then we should see that extinct fossilzed animals that are nearer in time should be more like those living today. We should also see that as we go further back in time they should be less and less like those today.

​

Now that we know about DNA and the genetics of living things we should also expect that those which the fossil record show separated more recently should have more similar genetics.

​

The fossil record, it's dating, the relationships of the bodies of living and extinct things AND the genetics of living things ALL are matched up exactly has evolution would predict. They are independently measured but all work out correctly.That's my attempt. I'm not sure if it's simpler or not. That is in the eye of the beholder.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-23-2004]

That remains to be seen. The fossil record, genetics, phologony match has been posted a number of times here. There has been no hint that the literalists understand it at all. I think it needs to be made much, much simpler yet.There has never been any answer put forward at all or a link to a site which hints at an answer. This should be a hint for those who are still thinking that there is no evidence for evolution. There a several issues raised (this one and the dating methods correlation for examples) that has NEVER received even a hint of an answer that addresses the issue. You might get suspicious that the creation "scientists" of ICR and the like don't actually have an answer, that, in fact there isn't one. The young earth and instantantaneous creation ideas are, from the evidence, wrong.