Seems to me those "bizarre little stumpy legs" should be identified as a case of the negative kinds of results to be expected from mutation, not an example of the novel traits that according to current theory are the fuel for the evolution of useful traits. There's lots of evidence for undesirable results of mutation, and for those supposedly "neutral" results for which there is no discernible phenotypic change, and for outright deleterious results, but the beneficial results one would assume would dominate if mutations really were the source of evolution-worthy traits are extremely rare and in most cases questionable (sickle cell/malaria).
The theory goes on optimistically asserting that mutation is the source of useful novel traits nevertheless, without any credible evidence for it.
The fact that all you thought worthy of mention was this one hardly-beneficial trait is typical evidence of the falseness of this theory of mutation, mere imaginary threads of the emperor's new clothes. Of course we'll be assured that there's no way to judge if a trait is beneficial or not, won't we, we're to leave that up to natural selection and other natural processes, cuz Nature works in mysterious ways. The mere fact that this trait has been passed on is considered some kind of evidence. I wonder how long it will take before the fraud is generally recognized.
Interesting to see such a complete attempt to lay out your defense of the theory of evolution. But as is often the case you don't have any understanding of creationism at all. I don't think I'm up to trying to answer your whole post at the moment but there are at least a few things I want to say:
First, you take the fossil record as evidence of evolution, and while there may be some creationists who accept that idea too I doubt there are many and I certainly don't. In my view the strata in which the fossils are found, that are identified by names llke "Triassic" and assigned millions of years of duration, are much better evidence for the worldwide Flood than for the ToE. I think it very odd, as a matter of fact, that intelligent people think time would be marked by such geological phenomena, a l a y e r of one particular sediment representing a particular time period of millions of years in which particular creatures llved, their burial in the sedimentary l a y e r being the evidence. I find that seriously contemplating that idea leads me to serious cynicism about the "science" that accepts such an idea.
So, not accepting the evolutionary interpretation of the geological column in which the fossils are found, I also don't accept the idea that the fossils themselves represent evolution from one level to the next, from the "Cambrian" to the "Silurian" to the "Permian" and so on. I acknowledge that there is a gradation from one type of creature to another that SEEMS to support the idea but I think that is an illusion, that in reality they are just creatures that were killed in the Flood, which is actually what the Flood was for according to the Bible: to kill all things living on the Earth. I also acknowledge that there is no clear way to explain how they got sorted as they are, but nevertheless this has to be the best interpretation.
As for the evolution interpretation of the fossil record I have the objection that getting new species takes only a few years, a hundred at most and that's a stretch, so the millions of years attached to the geological column are ridiculous. I also have the objection that it's physically impossible for creatures to get buried and fossilized in such an orderly way in separate and discreet sediments over periods of millions of years. I also have the objection that fossilization requires specific conditions, conditions beautifully met by a worldwide Flood but hard to explain on the theory of separate time periods.
What do Creationists think happened to get from point A to point B? Millions and millions of miracles, over millions and millions of years, creating new forms of **** in the precise order that matches the fossil record and the DNA evolutionary tree? Why weren't whales created at the same time as fish? Surely if they were created ex nihilo, it would be strange to create all those land mammals first, then create the forms with vestigial limbs, then finally the fully aquatic forms . . . exactly in the order of their evolution.
Yes, once a person is as persuaded of the ToE as you are it is very hard to get across the wholly different creationist explanation of living things. Of course there are many "creationisms" and even many different views of Creation as found in the Bible, so I'm only giving my own. My view is that there was one Creation of all the separate Kinds of creatures and they each had the capacity to vary into many different kinds or species, so that the Cat Kind produced every kind of cat on the Earth today, and probably many other kinds that didn't make it through the Flood. No millions of years involved, a few thousand is the biblical time period. Anyway, no miracles at all, just normal variation based on the genome of each Kind since the Creation. Nothing was created "first," followed by others, all of it was created at the same time, and again, in the biblical creationist view the "fossil record" is not a record of creation at all, or evolution. All such things as "vestigial" limbs or organs I understand in terms of former functions that have succumbed to disease processes since the Flood, but that's a very long discussion I'm only going to hint at here.
There is more evidence for evolution in the simple fact that we see it happening all the time, all around us. It seems unlikely that God would use miracles to create new species in the distant past, but nowadays allow species to evolve naturally, not bothering with miracles anymore.
The fact is that species or Kinds DO "evolve" and have evolved a great deal since the Creation, but that's because each Kind has its own built-in genome that has the capacity to vary from generation to generation. I don't know if you saw my post illustrating the range of skin colors that probably reflect the genome of Adam and Eve, but the whole range from darkest to lightest is quite possible in that one single genome, playing out down the generations in the whole range of skin colors in their progeny. Same with all the characteristics we see in each Kind, all the races of humanity, all the different kinds of dogs and cats and everything else that *****.
This ability to vary within the Kind is often called "microevolution" because it is confined to the Kind and provides no means of evolving into anything other than that Kind. That too is a long discussion which is being hashed out at EvC almost daily. But the creationist view is that all the variety of living things we see is the product of the capacity for great variation that is built into each Kind's genome.
You go on to mention some examples of plants, worms and mice that are easily enough explained on the creationist model but here is where I'm running out of energy to finish this post so I may come back to finish it later.
Interim summary: What you consider to be ironclad evidence for the ToE is actually open to other interpretations.
Without evolution reality itself changes. The existence of a god also changes reality. Everything we accept as reality changes if there is a God that can change the forces of nature. No one has seen magic or the supernatural. If it exists then the basic concepts of reality are questioned. Science as we know it has no meaning.
Interesting. This is how things look from the current point of view in which evolution is so entrenched it appears to be reality itself. Therefore without it reality certainly does change. Today's idea of reality that is, which is mistaken for reality itself.
Before evolution, however, the existence of God was taken for granted, so although that existence today "changes reality," it was evolution that changed reality which at that time had been based on belief in God. Yes, everything that TODAY is accepted as reality "changes if there is a God," but that merely reflects the mind-set of our times, not reality itself. If reality itself includes the existence of God, which of course I believe, then anyone who really cares about reality needs to know there is a God.
But science, true science, the science that develops medicine and discovered electricity and nuclear power and sends rockets into space and all that, is completely compatible with the idea of God, at least the biblical God. When you say it's not you are thinking of the bogus science of the ToE. That's the ONLY "science" that is incompatible and it's a fraud.
Well, again, I have a completely different interpretation of all that. I think the accumulated sediments don't need more than a few thousand years, actually the time since the Flood rather than the Creation, which is when I believe the continents split apart, at the Atlantic ridge in the case of the continents on either side of the Atlantic. And the current measured speed of separation is merely what the drift has slowed down to since that separation when it was much faster. And yes this means I have to reject radiometric dating.
Well, this is a work in progress and I don't expect to be able to answer all questions until later. I usually answer the astronomy question by saying that time is a completely different thing at that level. But again I'm happy to be sure of what I DO know for now.l The rest will fall into place later.
Speaking of astronomy, may I recommend the video "The Star of Betholemen" which I posted on the "Something Completely Different" thread...
You mean the sediments in the ocean? I didn't say they were accumulating at any particular rate at all. I said the continents started out splitting at a faster rate than they are separating now, having slowed down enormously over the last 4300 or so years. Seems likely that sediments have been falling off the continents at a pretty steady rate all that time. Might have started out faster because of the jolt of the separation. OR maybe not if the land was still wet from the Flood.
Yes the tectonic plates are moving much slower now than in the past. When the continents split there was probably a lot of volcanic activity at the boundaries where they split, at what became the Atlantic ridge for instance, and of course earthquakes, so lots of jolting as the plates began to move apart at what I figured would be a speed of twenty feet per day. Outrageous, too much heat etc etc but that's what I figured nevertheless, and now they've slowed down to their current whatever-it-is inches or part of an inch.
Thousands of years, 6000 since the Creation, about 4300 since the Flood, which is when I believe the continents split, or within a few hundred years of the Flood at least.
Yes, it's hilarious, but thousands of years, and tectonic speeds of twenty feet per day at the start. If it weren't for the volcanism you could probably have stood on the western shore of Europe or the British Isles and watched North America slowly moving away. For the first day or days you could swim out to it.
I thought through how far apart various bodies of land would be from each other at different stages of continental drift and it's interesting to think of different historical events having occurred when they were a lot closer than they are today. Even Columbus' voyage would have been much shorter than if the distance were as great as it is today. That's a matter to track down historically of course, if that's possible.
Well, all I can do is work with what I've got and what I've got is 4300 years for the continents to move apart. And among the other things I deny of course is that there is any such thing as "Cretaceous seas" or "Cambrian" anything.
Of course to deal with the heat problem there had to be something to counteract it. How about the A ir Conditioning effect, by which the ice age must have developed due to the great heat generated in the Flood and the tectonic movement?
Heat dissipating rapidly as huge clouds of vapor up to the cold regions above where it turns to rain or snow or sleet or hail and falls over a huge swath of the planet bringing on the ONE ice age. Something llke that.
ABE: Oh and by the way this one ice age has been retreating ever since, and what is now called "global warming" is no doubt just the continuing retreat of the ice age.
Oh, and isn't there a bit of a problem with the usual understanding of when the continents split? Llke in the Permian period or something llke that? But then the full geological column would not yet have developed, only up to that level. Yet we have complete stacks showing continuous deposition.
O blithering blather. When the continents split at the very least the existing geo column would have been disturbed. And you are not getting anything new anyway, just the continuation of the stack, and that isn't going to happen after that kind of upheaval. It's really remarkable that the strata of the British Isles just continue in a llne without any interruption at the Permian level although there they are right at the boundary of a continental split.
There should be interruption at the Permian level EVERYWHERE anywhere near the edge of the continent but there isn't. And I guess you've missed my multitudinous posts on Siccar Point or you wouldn't be acting llke I'd never heard of it before.
Actually I do believe the disturbance there WAS created by the jolt of the continents separating, also many other instances of angular unconformities elsewhere but since there are other places where the whole stack is llned up as a unit I assume that was the case at this location originally too.
You know I can point to geological evidence that supports the Flood. We can debate about the timing of course but the Bible is pretty clear about timing it at roughly 4300 years ago and although you dispute the Bible, I of course don't. Archaeology isn't divinely inspired, believe it or not.