PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     evidence against evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EVIDENCE #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." ([22], p.19)
"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)
"If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)
There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.
"All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)
"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)
"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
"The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." ([18], p.33-34)
"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)
"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."
Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.
"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time."

EVIDENCE #2
Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.

"All the `information' for the development of each particular organism was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce `after their kinds'." ([18], p.25)
"There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind'." ([18], p.25)
"The genetic system permits a wide variety of specific features (eye color, height, shape of skull, etc.) within the limits of a particular kind. These characteristics vary in accordance with the Mendelian laws of heredity. Depending on factors such as possible isolation and inbreeding, some of these characteristics become fixed and a definite `race' established."
"Although the number of varieties or races that may be established from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new kinds." ([18], p.26)
"For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species." ([22], p.7)
In light of these facts, evolutionists have turned to mutations (small, random and almost always harmful changes in the genetic code) in the gene pool to explain their theory, "The general picture of how evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant gene. Among these mutations most will be deleterious, but a minority will be beneficial. These few will be retained...". James F. Crow, a modern leader for evolution. ([19], p.47) Two problems with claiming mutations to be the source of positive change are as follows: "an accumulation of literally millions of such micro mutations would be necessary to change one basic `kind' of plant or animal into another" and "an even more serious difficulty is the fact that practically all observed mutations are harmful, and usually even fatal, to the creature experiencing them. Truly beneficial mutations are so rarely observed, and even these are so questionable, as to leave their very existence still in doubt. Even evolutionary geneticists readily acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations are harmful." ([18], p.27-28)
Mutation are small, random, and harmful or at best neutral to the organism, and rare. All four of these characteristics make mutations impossible to bringing evolutionary change. Any change that is random, because it is done to a highly ordered organism, will be harmful or neutral. A random change done to a wristwatch will not improve the watch. It will harm it or at very best, be neutral to it. An earthquake does not develop a city, it brings destruction to it. ([22], p.7 and [18], p.27)
"Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation." ([11], p.32)
"But, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial mutation might occur; still the fact remains that for every beneficial mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones so that the net effect, or result, over time will be that the harmful mutations always win and will ultimately cause the organism, or even species, to degenerate or die." ([22], p.8)
"...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can only alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential."
"...only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger, her baby would not, as a result, be born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring." ([22], p.9)
Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is natural preservation not natural selection (evolution). ([22], p.11)
Put another way, in regard to mutations, we can say, "Species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Darwinists claim that the same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants...to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans." ([11], p.16)
Breeding reproduces those animals with desired features. It is not evolution of the specimens. It is also within kind not crossing kinds, and all changes through breeding are lost after just a few generations. Breeding also, of course, cannot produce new genetic material or the potential for such. Cloning is the artificial stimulation of mitosis (cell division). It is not the creation of life. ([4], p.37)
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35)
"...an excess inflow of `ordering energy' into the system from outside may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized. Thus...a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure. But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in entropy, are only local and temporary.""Negative entropy (is required) for its maintenance." ([18], p.46)
A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.
Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore, energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or created from nothing by any natural process. ([19], p.32)
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible. ([18], p.46)
Regarding the validity of the laws, we note, "These laws are based upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no known exception to either of them."
It is noted that the `urge' to evolve is not at all found in chemistry. ([4], p.357)
In light of all of these scientific objections to natural selection, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

EVIDENCE #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.

"The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech." ([11], p.102)
"The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order." ([22], p.15)
"...the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!" ([22], p.15)
"...research has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between organic and inorganic matter." ([4], p.373)
"The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption." ([22], p.14 5)
We find that the same elements that supposedly created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then produce life again? ([4], p.373)
The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells.
We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.
Life is more than the sum of its parts. This may be why, at least in part, science cannot define life. It can only give the characteristics of living things.
Darwin wrote, "The first appearance of new beings...is a mystery of mysteries."
All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing (and neither can common sense account for it) and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.
In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity. Therefore, those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply disseminate into space not draw together to form anything.
Morality is generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.
Famous evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and animals, "Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an "embarrassment, something to be explained away." ([15], p.22)
Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this argument (natural selection) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties." ([15], p.26)
Regarding people's intellectual powers and moral sense among other things, Wallace also asserted that these "could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and..., therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them." ([11], p.310) He also concluded, "...a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose." ([15], p.26)
Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded "Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special." ([15], p.26)
Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative." ([19], p.362)
We find human's dominance over animals as utter and complete making a common ancestry virtually impossible. Wallace and Broom asserted, "The whole purpose, the only raison d'etre (reason for being) of the world...was the development of the human spirit with the human body." ([15], p.26)
Broom asserted, "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in (and therefore)...the evolution of man must have been planned by some spiritual power." ([14], p.42)
Regarding the 99% similarity chemically to apes figure, why is our dominion over the apes so extensive if the 99% is so significant?
Perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory had he realized these three gaps in the order of living things. He stated, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." ([10], p.33)

EVIDENCE #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull.

"Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!" Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey.
"There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies." Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was. ([14], p.?)
"`We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? `Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History. ([10], p.74)
Several of the supposed finds have relied on mere tooth or jaw fragments. These include Piltdown man, Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Hesperopithecus. (see picture #1) ([9], p.42; [15], p.44)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #1: Ramapithecus, considered the first `hominid' for twenty years by evolutionists, was based only on these teeth. ([14], p.212)
Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years. (picture #2) ([8], p.24-25)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #2: Scientists often demonstrate an utter inability to interpret their finds with any accuracy. This hoax, a human skull placed with an ape jaw, was not recognized as a hoax by the field for forty five years. During this time, they declared it to the public as being a human ancestor. ([8], p.25)
Ramapithecus lasted twenty years as considered to be the first in-between of humans and apes by judgment based only on teeth. He is now know to be an extinct baboon. (picture #1)
Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years. (picture #3)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #:3 Evolutionists often base their conclusions on such small `evidences' as a single tooth. They reconstruct creatures on this basis alone as pictured here.
Similarly, hominids (supposed in betweens) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc. (see picture #4) ([12], p.111; [2], p.51; [9], p.157)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #4: An example of the poor evidence that evolutionists use is this hip bone `find' that they say marked a `hominid'.
Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey.
The famous find named Lucy placed together looked nothing more than picture #5 yet it was regarded as a hominid without reservation.

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #5: Popular `finds' were often based on nothing more than this and even these bones were not even found together or from the same individual. ([8], p.57)
Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away." ([3], p.83)
Regarding the finder of Lucy we read, "...he regards the evolution of man from apes as self-evident, but who also regards the evidence as poppycock."
Rarely do they even know if the bone set is from the same individual.
The Boisei skull was broken in 400 pieces but pieced together and declared as all from the same skull.
Regarding the reconstructive drawings always made of these finds we note, "Well-known anthropologist E.A. Hooten has said that from a Neanderthal skull an artist can fashion the features of a chimpanzee or a philosopher and that it is wise to `...put not your faith in reconstructions.'"
In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top (picture #6) unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever.

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #6: This skull actually has a crest on the top (as ape skulls only, right picture) but it was declared as a human ancestor. ([2], p.139)
The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after.
Paleontologists have called simple rocks as hominid tools. (picture #7)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #7: These simple rocks are actually declared by evolutionists to be tools of `hominids'. ([12], p.100,105)
Even bones and teeth were picked as tools of hominids. (picture #8)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #8: Evolutionists have declared nondescript bone and tooth remains to be tools of `hominids'. Pictured is one evolutionist demonstrating its use. ([8], p.59)
The most non-descript footprints were called those of hominids. (picture #9)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #9: These footprints were actually declared by evolutionists as those of `hominids'.
Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. This made virtually all the paleontologist's dates wrong and made all the posited bushes of human origins incorrect. ([15], p.130-131)
"(That modern humans evolved in many different areas at the same time) is theoretically implausible based on current knowledge (in population genetics)." Popular geneticist Shahin Rouhani ([15], p.133)
Famous Paleontologist Roger Lewin admits, "The mitochondrial DNA technique appears to support the Noah's Ark hypothesis (that we originated from one set of people at the same location not many people and places as the evolutionists concluded). ([15], p.130-131)
Outside the strict fossil evidence, therefore, each branch of scientific analysis that has focused on the origin of modern humans - mitochondrial DNA, population genetics, ecology - has cast its vote to replacement, the Noah's Ark Hypothesis.
The paleontologist dates had to be changed. They had hominids dating as far back as 63 million years.
Biochemists and Molecular Biologists note that inferring relationships from fossils was "Fraught with potential error." ([14], p.105)
Sarich put it bluntly, "...it (a fossil) could not be (a hominid), because it was too old." ([13], p.76)
Paleontologists were slow to admit their errors or even look at any of the data. At first they just "...trimmed (their) dates...just in case there was something in it (the biochemistry data)." Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam ([14], p.116). Wilson stated that the paleontologists "...functioned as if we did not exist. They just ignored us." ([14], p.116)
After fifteen years, the paleontologists reluctantly accepted the biochemistry evidence. "We anthropologists were forced to admit we had been wrong and that Sarich and Wilson were closer to the right track than any of us had even imagined." Paleontologist Richard Leakey. ([13], p.78)
Paleontologists had been producing a new lineage every 10 - 20 years for 60 years. ([21], p.186) They could not draw these since, "To put it crudely, the appearance in a single species of a combination of characteristics some of which appear early...while others appear late." ([15], p.76)
Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam, regarding two of the finds now known not to be hominids, observes, "We should have been aware how flimsy our original arguments had been and that should have made us more cautious. But it didn't." ([14], p.100)
"That 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples is significant negative evidence." ([11], p.84)

EVIDENCE #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
The first nine of the twelve popularly regarded hominids put forth by evolutionists by bone and skull finds have been demonstrated as being extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all. The discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/ apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.

The first nine of the supposed hominids are actually apes/monkeys and nothing more (picture #10).

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #10: The first nine popularly regarded `hominids' put forth and here reconstructed by evolutionists, have been found to be fully monkeys/ apes and not part human at all. The drawings are very misrepresentative, of course. ([8], poster that accompanies book)
Major Evidences Against Each Supposed Hominid Above
PLIOPITHECUS:
(A) #5, Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. #1 was placed on the chart before #5 because it seemed more monkey-like than #5. It stands to reason that it too was a monkey and not part human.
(B) #1 was named as a hominid because it looked like a cross between two monkeys, the spider monkey and the gibbon, not because it looked part human.
PROCONSUL:
(A) Same as above.
(B) Same as above.
DRYOPITHECUS:
(A) Same as (A) of #1 and #2.
(B) #3 is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape's.
OREOPITHECUS:
(A) Same as (A) of #1, #2, and #3.
(B) #4 is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.
RAMIPITHECUS:
(A) Fossil finds in 1982 and 1988 showed that #5 was only an extinct relative of the orangutan and not part human at all.
(B) #5 was based only on a set of teeth.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS:
(A) #6 was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose apelike features had not yet fully developed because it was still a baby.
(B) #6 was studied by a team of scientists which concluded that the skull had no human features at all.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS:
(A) #7 was based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree.
(B) Same as (B) of #6.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI:
(A) Same as (A) of #7.
(B) Same as (B) of #6 and #7.
AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy)
(A) #9 is based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are also small with most of the skeleton missing.
(B) Same as (B) of #6, #7, and #8.


Number five of picture #10, Ramapithecus, became known as an ape when a fossil face of an extinct ape was found in Pakistan in 1982 and in Turkey in 1980. It was called Sivapithecus. "(The two finds) allowed paleontologists to recognize that this extinct ape is related to the living orangutan. Now, as Ramapithecus is clearly closely related to Sivapithecus, it too must be related to the orangutan." ([14], p.86) As famous paleontologist Roger Lewin notes, "(The status of Ramapithecus went) from putative first human in 1961 to extent relative of the orangutan in 1982." ([14], p.86) This conclusion is accepted by virtually everyone in the field. (picture #1)
Since Ramapithecus was an ape, so too, it should be concluded, were the first four of the supposed hominids. The first four were placed before Ramapithecus precisely because they looked even more ape or monkey like than Ramapithecus itself.
In fact, the first and second ones on picture #10, Pliopithecus and Proconsul, were named as hominids only because they looked like a cross between certain known monkeys. It never had anything to do with being part human at all. It is observed, "Pliopithecus resembled a modern day spider monkey except for its skull, face and teeth, which looked like those of a gibbon." ([8], p.41)
The third one, Dryopithecus "...has been reconstructed primarily by using (lower) jaw and tooth fragments." ([8], p.42) What is more, its lower jaw was discovered as fitting perfectly with the ape (accepted as not part human) Kenyapithecus. We read, "I was looking at these specimens but the lower jaw (of Dryopithecus) with the Kenyapithecus upper and saw that they fit perfectly the overall shape, the detailed anatomy, everything. They might well have belonged to the same individual." Peter Andrews
Oreopithecus, the fourth supposed hominid, is written about as follows, "Once thought to be ancestral to man because of its teeth and pelvis, it is now regarded as an aberrant ape or an aberrant relative of monkeys." Paleontologist Clark Howell ([8], p.42)
The sixth one, Australopithecus Africanus, is to be considered an ape/ monkey and nothing more on the basis of several evidences. Dean Falk, specialist in neuroanatomy, concluded this about Australopithecus Africanus, "In his 1975 article, Dart (founder of the fossil that represented Australopithecus Africanus) had claimed that the brain of Taung (the name of the fossil) was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that." ([2], p.13) Falk explains, "...Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized...because it was a child. Like humans, (apes and monkeys) go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans." ([2], p.12-3)
Roger Lewin, Famous paleontologist concurred saying, "...juvenile apes have a very humanlike form." ([14], p.78)
Falk adds, "In all major respects, the Taung endocast appears apelike, not humanlike." ([2], p.47) "...it was an unfortunate error (misidentifying the lambdoid suture as the lunate sulcus) that caused Dart to suggest that australopithecine brains were humanlike." ([2], p.34)
Prominent anatomist at the time of Dart's discovery, Arthur Keith, wrote, "(Dart's) claim is preposterous, the skull is that of a young anthropoid ape...and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group. ([10], p.56)
Australopithecus Robustus, number seven on the list, and Australopithecus Boisei, number eight, rest on very inconsistent assumptions. There skulls actually have crests on the top (picture #6). This crest appears in male apes (picture #6) but not in humans at all.
The final Australopithecus, Australopithecus Afarensis or Advanced Australopithecus, also named Lucy and is number nine on the chart, is based only on that of picture #5. What is more, these fragments were placed together by diggers who found them miles apart and hundreds of feet deeper.
In addition, "...Johanson (the one who put the parts together and found them) admits that from the neck up, `Lucy' was ape (she had the jaws, teeth, face, and brain of an ape)..." ([3], p.83) Roger Lewin notes that Lucy seemed to be an ape's head on a human's body. ([15], p.59)
Regarding all four of the Australopithecus types, we find the following "Lord Zuckerman (Dr. Solly Zuckerman), a famous British anatomist,...had a team of scientists, rarely numbering less than four, who studied the fossils of Australopithecus for 15 years. They used the most sophisticated methods of anatomical study available to analyze these fossils. After many years of study and research, Lord Zuckerman declared that Australopithecus did not walk upright, and that these creatures were not intermediate between ape and man. Lord Zuckerman's team concluded that they were not the same as any modern ape living today, but they were, nevertheless, nothing more than apes." ([1], p.84) He added, "...the anatomical basis for the claim that (they) walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates, that it remains unacceptable." ([11], p.82) "He Zuckerman, says that if we exclude the possibility of creation, then, obviously, man must have evolved from an ape like creature but if he did there is no evidence for it in the fossil record. Lord Zuckerman makes no profession of being a creationist. If the evidence supported evolution, he would readily accept it." ([1], p.84)
"Dr. Charles Oxnard, (professor of anatomy), ...studied the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) of Australopithecus. He employed the very latest techniques for his research. Dr. Oxnard, even though he is not a creationist, has declared that his research has established that these creatures did not walk upright like humans, that they were not intermediate between apes and man...Other scientists have come to somewhat similar conclusions." ([1], p.84)
Dean Falk, brain specialist, regarding the four Australopithecus types, note their rejection by scientists as anything more than monkeys/ apes, "Since 1985, much new evidence has come to light that shows australopithecines were much more apelike than previously believed. As I write this book, the accepted view of Taung and the other australopithecines has taken a 180 degree turn because of the research on dentition and locomotion by numerous young investigators whose work has already been discussed: Bill Jungers, Holly Smith, Tim Bromage, Mike Vannier, and Glenn Conroy. Although the `australopithecines-humanlike' school still has its diehards, they no longer hold the majority opinion...And, the endocasts of australopithecines are, of course, just as apelike as they can be." (picture #13)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #13: Above are the skulls used for numbers 6-9 on picture #10. They can be shown to be those of extinct monkeys/ apes and not part human at all.
It is apparent even to the naked eye that these skulls were monkeylike. Here is another monkey skull for comparison. (picture #11) ([12], p.52)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #11: Many skulls are those of extinct monkeys and apes. Here is a skull of one known extinct monkey. It, of course, greatly resembles the `finds' of evolutionists. ([8], p.31)
We find that all of these species were found only were monkeys and apes exist or have existed and nowhere else. We find also that the total number of species of monkeys and apes is 166 today with a possible hundreds of additional extinct ones. These finds could be any of them. (picture #12)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #12: These charts show where the supposed human ancestors were found (left) and were monkeys/ apes have existed (right). As expected, the supposed `hominids' are not found anywhere that monkeys or apes have not existed supporting the fact that these supposed `hominids' are actually only extinct monkey/ apes.
Therefore, Solly Zuckerman and many other conclude (paraphrase), "...variation among ape fossils is sufficiently great (such) that a scientist whose imagination was fired by the desire to find ancestors could easily pick out some features in an ape fossil and decide that they were `pre-human'." ([11], p.82)

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
The last three of the popular twelve hominids have been demonstrated as being modern human beings. Human skulls naturally vary in size and many other characteristics. They often also are misshapen by certain diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget's disease, congenital syphilis, and starvation. Skulls found with diseases or normal human variations could lead one to suppose that certain modern human skulls are something less than human. This has been a great mistake by evolutionists who not only have failed to recognize variance in human skulls but also to make the public aware of it as well.

On picture #14, Homo Erectus, number 10, is an actual modern human being and nothing less. One Homo Erectus find, called Peking Man, was based on but one tooth. "Davidson Black...became convinced that it (the one tooth) was a human tooth...He then confidently announced a new genus of man." ([8], p.78)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #14: The final three popularly regarded `hominids' put forth and here reconstructed by evolutionsist, have been found to be fully modern human and not part monkey/ape at all.
Major Evidences Against Each Supposed Hominid Above
10. HOMO ERECTUS: #10 was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.
11. NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.
12. CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.


Another, Rhodesia Man (one Homo Erectus), was reported as follows, "Paleontologists pointed out that this...creature...had undoubtedly suffered from tooth decay. It was difficult to imagine how this disease of civilization could have attacked prehistoric man. And two very odd holes in the side of the skull caused the experts even greater perplexity. In the view of Professor Mair of Berlin they looked like the entry and exit holes of a modern bullet." ([20], p.155)
Regarding another Homo Erectus type, prominent medical authority of the day, Rudolf Virchow, noted, "I know such growths, and have treated many patients who had them. If these patients had not been well looked after they would have died."
Homo Erectus was considered primitive only because of his brain size. He was "...modern of limb but more primitive of brain." ([8], p.42) Yet his brain was considered primitive only because it was supposedly smaller than the modern. However, regarding its size, it is noted, "...there are men of marked intelligence walking about today whose brains are as small or smaller than this." In fact, its brain is said to extend "...into the middle range of Homo Sapiens." ([8], p.42)
Regarding the final two on the chart, Neanderthal Man and Cro Magnon Man, numbers 10 and 11, we read, "...from all the evidence, many scientists agree that they would be indistinguishable from modern man." ([22], p.21)
On the Neanderthal finds, medical expert Rudolf Virchow declared, "The curved leg bones were the result of rickets (vitamin deficiency)...the knots of bone above the eyes had been caused by damage to the skull, and other special features of the skeleton were the result of arthritis deformans." (picture #15) ([23], p.57)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #15: Evolutionists have failed to recognize certain diseases which affect human bone and skull formation. As a result, they have declared deformed modern human bones and skulls to be human ancestors. The photo on the left demonstrates the result of arthritis on human legs making the person walk more apelike. The photo on the right demonstrates a modern human skull deformed by disease. Neanderthal man was based on nothing more than finds of modern human skulls and bones with diseases.
One book even pictures a modern man and suggests that Neanderthal looked just like him. (picture #16)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #16: Some books picture a modern man and state it to be what Neanderthal Man would have looked like (left photo) and what Cro-Magnon Man would have looked like (right photo). This supports the fact that they were actual modern human beings. Skulls that are of modern humans have actually been declared to the public by evolutionists to be human ancestors.
Decades later he was shown to be correct. The field accepted his conclusion but continued to embrace Neanderthal as less than a person. "The curvatures in the limb bones, and other deformities, led scientists to believe that Neanderthal walked with a stooped, bent kneed gait. Decades later, it was shown that these were in fact the remains of an old individual crippled with arthritis." ([10], p.47) Picture #15 shows how rickets affects bones and disease affects skulls. Other diseases which affect skulls are Paget's disease and Congenital Syphilis; both are hereditary. (This is significant since all the Neanderthal people were from the same group of people at the same place.). (picture #15)
"Scientists have concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases." ([3], p.81) In addition, we find Neanderthal people to have buried their dead, which demonstrates care for the dead, an awareness of the transitory nature of life, and perhaps has religious significance. These are hardly that of supposed primitive people.
Of Cro Magnon Man, it is reported as "...indistinguishable in body and brain" from modern man. ([2], p.42) It is reported that he is "...identical to a modern European." ([3], p.85) Indeed, authorities agree, "Cro Magnon was, in the anatomical sense, truly modern Homo Sapiens. The fossilized remains are identical with those of people living today." ([12], p.142)
One book even pictures a modern man and says that this is what Cro-Magnon Man looked like. (Picture #16)
Cro-Magnon is credited with the famous cave drawings yet these drawings and sculptures are considered by the same people as "...so powerfully conceived and executed that they rank amonk mankind's greatest artistic achievements of all time." ([8], p.155)
These drawings and engravings picture people in burial poses and with their hair in a bun or short plaits, and wearing headbands. (picture #17)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #17: One supposed human ancestor, Cro-Magnon Man, was said to have made this sculpture even though the woman has braided hair. Other acts such as the wearing of headbands and burying dead are also attributed to this supposed ancestor.
Variance in human skulls should have been expected. The encyclopedia The Human Body notes, "The skull of man demonstrates many variations." Among them is "the pronounced brow ridges." ([21], p.112) (picture #18)

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #18: Normal variation in human skulls has not been taken into consideration by evolutionists. This modern human skull, for example, has the prominent brow ridge that supposedly was the mark of a human ancestor.
The fact that evolutionists were attempting to find apelike features in these modern skulls is apparent. The reconstruction in picture #19 makes this point obvious.

Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #19: Efforts by evolutionists to find apelike features in modern human skulls is obvious. Above is the reconstruction, by an evolutionist, from a skull that can be shown to be a modern human.


Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval.

Picture #20: Above are the skulls used for numbers 10-12 on picture #13. They can be shown to be those of actual modern human beings and not part ape at all.
Naturally, we find these three supposed hominids to be the only finds to be located where monkeys and apes are not found. ([12], p.88)
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.

Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder.

Socially, natural selection requires barbarianism. One famous author, favorable to natural selection, admits, "Barbarism is the only process by which man has organically progressed and civilization is the only process by which he has declined. Civilization is the most dangerous enterprise on which man has ever set." ([4], p.350)
It lacks mercy and pity and anything else that might make us moral or even social and not harmful. "No more cruel doctrine was ever promulgated. Those who believe it are robbed of the pity and mercy that comes of civilization." ([4], p.350)
Natural Selection commends savages who eliminate the weak. It commended the ruthless takeover of the Native Indian of North America, the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust, and all other acts where the powerful ruthlessly have their way. It names all who kill as better. It would name a country that destroys all others as best.
Natural Selection argues against such things as vaccinations that help the weak. It demands that the weaker not reproduce so that society not be `dragged down'.
Even animals, however, exhibit altruism. Walruses sacrifice their lives for their young. Some heard animals provide warning signals for the herd which put themselves at personal risk. Bees and ants function together and not merely in competition. And, of course, so do people do all these things. Yet Darwin stated, "If it could be proved that any species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection. ([11], p.30)
Natural selection, practically speaking, is impossible. "How can such things be built up by infinitesimally small inherited variations each profitable to the preserved being? The first step towards a new function such as vision or the ability to fly would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time." ([11], p.?)
Natural selection demands progress at every step of change. It cannot have forethought and planning and thus bear up with say a half formed eye in order to form the eye. How then was the eye produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at some point. "It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think." ([22], p.11)
The world is full of interdependence and it makes natural selection unthinkable. How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproduction systems to evolve? Reproduction was necessary for survival but how could natural selection create this? One sex had to exist before natural selection would bring another sex into existence. How did the first sex get there and how did reproduction take place while the other sex was forming? Or, are we to believe that they just both formed independently perfectly suited for one another? An infinite amount of other such examples can be stated since the world is full of interdependence.
The world is also made up of order. For example, we find that the process by which life sustains itself is a very highly ordered one. "... DNA and protein formation must be described by making quite literal use of the linguistic terms code, transcribe, and translate. We speak of a genetic code, of DNA being transcribed into RNA, and RNA being translated into protein. The genetic code is composed of letters (nucleotide), words (codons or triplets), sentences (genes), and paragraphs (operons), chapters (chromosomes), and books (living organisms). Such talk is not anthropomorphic, it is literal. Living organisms do not contain only order but information as well. By contrast to the simple repetition of ME, the genetic code is like the Encyclopedia Britannica." ([17], p.51) Order, as from DNA, is essential for the survival of living things.
Regarding the parts that make us up, it is obvious that nothing works until everything works as is noted, "...the real trouble arises because too much of the complexity seems to be necessary to the whole way in which organisms work." ([11], p.10) A.G. Cairns-Smith, pro-natural selection.
Indeed, we find as James Crow, a modern leader for the theory of evolution admits, "...the details (of how it could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." ([19], p.48)
Creation, as we find it, must have been made complete and functional from the beginning.
In addition, we find that there simply is not nearly enough time for change as is given by pro-theory people. If no change has occurred in the last 4,000, it is unreasonable to suppose so much change (or any for that matter) could have occurred in 25,000,000 years. This figure is only about 6,000 times 4,000. Therefore, if we take the amount of change over the last 4,000 years and multiply it by 6,000 we do not nearly get the change evolutionists propose. In fact, we get no change or no evolution. Evolutionists themselves say that species remain unchanged in fossil records for an average of 10,000,000 years. Therefore, how could 60,000,000 years, or even many more, make a creature change in any noticeable way?

EVIDENCE #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Natural selection has these and many other logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor. (c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.

That living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it. ([22], p.)
Similarity among living things points to a common design by a designer who used similar patterns.
Similarity among living things does not point to evolution. "There is no more reason to believe that man descended from some inferior animal as there is to believe that a stately mansion has descended from a cottage." ([4], p.357)
It only makes sense that there would be similarities among living things since they all share the same environment. For example, since we all share air, it makes sense that many would have lungs.
It only makes sense to create things similar since similarity allows people to identify and work with other living things more easily.
In fact, if the environment controls natural selection and we are all from the same ancestor (some single cell or whatever), why is there such variety in the world? With the same ancestor and precipitator, would all not have been brought to at least close to the same end? Instead some living things are cells and plants, others are horses and people.
In fact, since the environment is constant, it must be asked, `Why did some species evolve and not others?' and `Why did lesser forms survive and more developed ones die off?'
In response, statements such as "...the apes ...blew it through indolence. No pain, no gain." ([13], p.70) and "...the gorilla and chimpanzee gave up the struggle for mental supremacy because they were satisfied with their circumstances." ([14], p.35)
"It is true that we do see all around us things growing up to perfection from small and rude beginnings but then it is equally true that the small and rude beginnings themselves always come from some full grown and developed thing. All adults were once babies, true: but then all babies were begotten and born by adults. Corn does come from seed: but then seed comes from corn." "The first crude engine, the Rocket, came, not from still a cruder engine, but from something much more perfect than itself and much more complex, the mind of man..." ([4], p.388) Famous philosopher C.S. Lewis.
"In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect -- egg leads to bird and bird to egg -- in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization." C.S. Lewis ([4], p.389)
"You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?" C.S. Lewis ([4], p.389)
We find that natural selection would have had to create not only better survival abilities but also such needs as love, companionship, and other things not bound to personal survival such as reproduction. There is so much more to people than just survival abilities. How could natural selection have produced this?
We find that the world was obviously made for humankind and this demands more than change for survival but order, interdependence, and design.
In addition, how is it that we do things harmful to ourselves if the environment has created all that we are for our personal good and survival?
If there are not fundamental distinctions in the living world, we must be considered murderers when we kill even a cow and also cannibals when we eat it.
Do we look at an airplane and say that the order and interdependence could have come about by chance? How can we look at something infinitely more complex (a person, for example) and say it?



EVIDENCE #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossils require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having occurred. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years.

The columns in the rock strata are actually made up from different regions of the world. The full rock strata is found nowhere in the world. It is made up of columns superimposed from different regions all over the world. The whole strata is 100 miles thick but there is no locality more than one mile and even this locality is the Grand Canyon. ([18], p.35)
The rock strata consists of a plethora of contradictions and reversals. Often the strata that is supposed to be old is found on top and vice versa. Often they are horizontal with one another. ([18], p.35)
"Although sometimes there may be evidences of physical disturbance (leading to faulting and holding) in these `upside down' areas, it is quite often true that they can only be revealed by an `unnatural sequence of fossils,' which means that the fossils are not found in the order presupposed by their evolutionary relationship." ([19], p.54)
Evolutionist Walter E. Lammerts reports, "The actual percentage of area showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types." ([19], p.54)
"In order to account for these numerous exceptions to the supposed universal order of evolutionary development as revealed in the fossiliferous rocks, theory has to be piled on top of theory. Thus, the missing ages indicated by a disconformity are explained by a supposed regional uplift and period of erosion. An inverted order of fossils is explained by a regional uplift followed by a horizontal thrust fault followed by a period of erosion, and so forth. One is reminded of Occam's Razor, the principle that cautions against any unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses to explain a given set of phenomena." ([19], p.54)
"...in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers which indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years..." ([22], p.28)
Rock strata is far better explained by a universal flood rather than millions of years.
"The usual order of deposition of fossils (as noted before, there are many, many exceptions to this usual order) would be such that the simpler fossils would be deposited near the bottom, and the more complex fossils near the top of each local geographic column. The hydrodynamic sorting action of moving water is quite efficient, so that each stratum would tend to contain an assemblage of fossils of similar shapes and sizes. Simple organisms, dwelling at the lower elevations, would normally also be buried at the lower elevations. More complex animals, larger and more mobile, and dwelling at higher levels, would obviously tend to be buried, if caught by the sediments at all, only at higher elevations. Very few birds, higher mammals, and especially men, would be overtaken and buried, but would usually float on the surface until consumed by scavengers or simply decomposed." ([18], p.40) For this reason as well fossil fuels could not have been created as evolutionists state they were; the animals would decompose before they would be buried over years upon years.
A catastrophe such as a universal flood is necessary for fossils to form. "Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure so that their bones or imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure, they will not be fossilized. Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure." ([22], p.27)
An evolutionist geologist wrote, "A carcass after death is almost sure to be torn apart or devoured by carnivores or other scavengers, and if it escapes these larger enemies, bacteria insure the decay of all but the hard parts, and even they crumble to dust after a few years if exposed to the weather. If buried under moist sediment or standing water, however, weathering is prevented, decay is greatly reduced, and scavengers cannot disturb the remains. For these reasons burial soon after death is the most important condition favoring preservation...Water-borne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other kinds, that they include the great majority of all fossils. Flooded streams drown and bury their victims in the shifting channel sands or in the mud of the valley floor." ([19], p.63)
"For example, there would naturally be a tendency for those sediments and organisms which occupied the lowest elevations before the flood to be buried deepest by the flood. Thus, simple marine organisms and marine sediments would tend to be buried deepest, then fishes and more complex marine creatures, then reptiles and amphibians, then mammals, and finally, man. Another factor controlling to some extent the order of deposition of the sediments and the organisms contained in them would be that of the relation between the specific gravity and the hydrodynamic drag. Each particle of material, as well as the remains of each animal, would tend to fall by gravity out of the aqueous mixture in which it was being carried. This tendency would be resisted by the hydrodynamic drag force of the water acting upward on it. The latter depends on the state of turbulence of the water and also on the shape of the object, being greatest for objects of complex shape and least for objects of streamlined shape. Thus there would be a tendency for organisms of high density and simple structure to settle out most rapidly and, therefore, to be buried deepest. This factor of hydrodynamic selectivity is often highly efficient and would tend to cause rather highly sorted sediments and fossils, with organisms of similar size and shape being buried together. A third factor which would have an important effect, so far as living organisms were concerned, would be their relative abilities to escape the onrushing flood waters by retreating to higher ground. The simpler, less mobile, smaller creatures would thus be caught and trapped first, whereas higher animals, and especially man, would often be able to retreat to the very highest points of the region before being inundated. This too would mean that most men and higher animals would never be buried at all in sediments, but would float on the surface of the waters until decomposed or destroyed by scavenger fish." ([22], p.73)
The flood would have to have been a universal one since local floods would not have produced the pressure that would be needed. ([15], p.27)
An event of a universal flood is accounted for "...by hundreds of reflections of this...great event handed down in the legends and historical records of practically all nations and tribes in the earth." ([19], p.65)

There we go. proof against evolution.






-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:30 PM on September 12, 2007 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."


Is this a joke?

Being that the very first line is a lie I can imagine the rest is also.

I can give you an existing reptilian/mammal transitional right now, the platypus.

How about an existing example of what a land mammal to whale transitionals would look like: sea lions, manatees, seals.

How about water to land? mudskippers

Everything in the fossil record is a transitional, nothing just appear out of thin air.



(Edited by Army_of_Juan 10/2/2007 at 5:05 PM).


-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 5:04 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just looked over it again and wow, there are so many lies and flat out ignorance that I think I lost about 10 IQ points reading it.

It's stupidity like this that's hurting this country. I don't think Jesus would condone this amount of lying.


-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 5:09 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

n one evolutionist text book they said that life doen't come from none life, ie rocks won't become turtles, and blades of grass won't become snakes. However in the next chapter they said that life came from a chemical soup tat some how spawned life. Now tell me how does that make sense?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:58 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 5:58 PM on October 2, 2007 :
n one evolutionist text book they said that life doen't come from none life, ie rocks won't become turtles, and blades of grass won't become snakes. However in the next chapter they said that life came from a chemical soup tat some how spawned life. Now tell me how does that make sense?



A blade of grass is life. You fail.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:45 PM on October 2, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

n one evolutionist text book they said that life doen't come from none life, ie rocks won't become turtles, and blades of grass won't become snakes. However in the next chapter they said that life came from a chemical soup tat some how spawned life. Now tell me how does that make sense?

Please name the "evolutionist" text book or retract the claim.  And explain to us what abiogenesis has to do with the theory of evolution...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:14 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 9:45 PM on October 2, 2007 :
Quote from SilverStar at 5:58 PM on October 2, 2007 :
n one evolutionist text book they said that life doen't come from none life, ie rocks won't become turtles, and blades of grass won't become snakes. However in the next chapter they said that life came from a chemical soup tat some how spawned life. Now tell me how does that make sense?



A blade of grass is life. You fail.



Not When it is dead, ie. cut off the rest of the plant.



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:34 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not When it is dead, ie. cut off the rest of the plant.


Wow. What a revelation. When you cut a bear's head off, it's no longer alive either. Excellent snippet of irrelevant commentary on your part, SS.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:00 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's funny, I provided a number of clearly transitional fossils and mentioned a few series of transitional fossils, like the fish to amphibian series and the reptile to mammal series.  Yet
creationest6 keeps ignoring these examples and keeps cutting and pasting the same erroneous claims.  Guess he and his sources can't refute the real evidence...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:30 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
knightofchrist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh please those things aren't transitional fossils, or why don't you give an example of ape to man. Besides you focused solely on his first argument bt what about his third, maybe you should refute his entire argument and then I may consider listening to you but until then I must admit you seem somewhat stubborn.


-------
If evolution is correct then our minds are the result of random chemical reactions then how can we trust them?
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:16 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh please those things aren't transitional fossils,

Why aren't they transitional?  Explain to us what a transitional fossil is and why it's transiutional.  If you can't do this, you have no basis claiming anything isn't tranistional.  Here, explain to us why the synapsid line of reptiles to mammals isn't transitional.  Put up or shut up big mouth...

why don't you give an example of ape to man.

Well, it appears you don't understand that man is an ape.  But a transitional leading to man, how about Homo Habilis.
Besides you focused solely on his first argument bt what about his third, maybe you should refute his entire argument and then I may consider listening to you but until then I must admit you seem somewhat stubborn.

Well, let's see, he was completely wrong about  transtional fossils, he claimed there are none (a common creationist false claim) and when presented with a number of clearly transitional fossils, he cut and run, probably what you'll do, now that I've presented a fossil lineage illustrating reptile to mammal evolution.  All his points were common creationist PRATTs, Points Refutes A Thousand Times.  His third point was eqwually ignorant, evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different things and are not contingent on each other.
He uses the standard creationist false claims, life is too complex to have arisen, where is the evidence to support this?  The overwhelming majority of the worlds biochemists certainly don't support this claim.  All the quotes he uses are out of date, quote mined and just plain wrong.  He makes all the standard creationist mistakes and ignores everyone who points these out to him.  I don't know how many people told him that evolution isn't driven by chance, yet he still uses this childish, incorrect claim.  
It's clear that creationest6 has no idea how evolution, biology, chemistry, astronomy work.  The sources he uses also are ignorant of real science.  Why bother refuting every single error (and there are a ton of them in that post) when we can show how wrong it is by highlightling a few key points.
If you have any counter claims, present them.
But until you do, it's just you whining against modern science and reality.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:18 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hi-5 Demon38!


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 11:08 AM on September 3, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Galileo.  I'm interested to see if knightofchrist responds or if he cuts and runs...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:08 PM on September 3, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from knightofchrist at 8:16 PM on September 2, 2008 :
Oh please those things aren't transitional fossils, or why don't you give an example of ape to man.


uh...homo sapien is an ape.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:28 AM on September 4, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Demon38 at 6:18 PM on September 2, 2008 : and when presented with a number of clearly transitional fossils, he cut and run, probably what you'll do, now that I've presented a fossil lineage illustrating reptile to mammal evolution.  


What a prophet!

Creationists always ask for "undeniable" transitional fossils. That can't be done, since they will always deny them.

Well, most of them will just ignore them, but some will deny them.

10 years from now computers will be powerful enough to simulate little 3D worlds, with different habitats, maybe seasons, day and night, catastrophes, and lots of other cool stuff. And we will be able to evolve very smart digital creatures.

Until then we can play with this software: www.swimbots.com

2D, limited size, only one habitat, no predation, and there's a limit to the complexity of the creatures. But even then they manage to evolve! They're amazing!




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:19 PM on September 29, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 6:30 PM on September 12, 2007 :
The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal ...


Um, what evolutionary biologist claims that animals evolved from plants?
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:01 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 6:30 PM on September 12, 2007 :(a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it.


Huh?

1) Why is it then that introduced species often outcompete the native species?

2) If manatees were created for their environment, then why do they have toenails, have internal skeletons of flippers that are homologous to terrestrial tetrapod limbs, have vestigial pelvises, and vestigial hipsockets?

Quote from creationest6 at 6:30 PM on September 12, 2007 : (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor.


Nope.  Shared mistakes support common ancestry and crush the common designer argument.

For example, both chimps and humans have a non-functional gene (pseudogene) called psi-beta 1, and it is rendered non-functional in both chimps and humans by the same 3 disabling mutations.  

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:13 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationest, you have such a laundry list that its tiresome to read.

Why dont you take your one very best point and give us that one.  After that is demolished, if you are smart you will see where the trend is.  If not, bring out your second best one then the 3rd.


 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 8:53 PM on December 10, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ha.  i will answer for you...

Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)

Lets take eyes.  Someone missed his invertebrate zoology course!  There are protozoans that are light sensitive, and move away from light.  The famous Euglena from high school biology has a light sensitive eye spot.  There is a whole range of light sensitive structures, simple eyes, and on up to eyes better than human eyes.  Squids have a more sensible design, they move a rigid lens back and forth to focus, instead of trying to change the shape of it like we do.

Anyhow..there are lots of examples of what you called  "partially evolved eyes".  Same with brains or any other structure.

If creationism was solid facts it would not be necessary to just make things up like the above paragraph.
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 09:19 AM on December 11, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't expect a prompt answer from creationists.

Partly because we've scared them away. Partly because they're usually better at making claims than answering to objections.

I've been trying to recruit creationists. We're kinda short of them.

They all end up leaving, never changing their minds.

Because their faith is beyond reasoning.

They use reasoning to convince others (and themselves, because their faith isn't as strong as to make them stop looking both sides when crossing the street). If (when) their argument fails, they try another one. Because they KNOW (without understanding) that it all MUST be true, in spite of all the evidence against it.

That's what faith is. Believing without understanding.

If they have a strong faith when you show them that God made it look like Earth is billions of years old, and that all animals evolved, they'll say "God works in mysterious ways". That's it.

But if they try using reason, it means their faith isn't the strongest. And that being the case, it can die. And when that happens they can become nihilists, or they can find another meaning of Life (more realistic, one would say).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:43 AM on December 11, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This could have been written about, certainly applies to Creationist6

T. H. Huxley's final statement from his famous debate with Bishop Wilberforce.

     Thousands of people have devoted their lives—many have given their lives—to better the human condition and to build the intellectual body of knowledge we call science. In describing how the physical world works, it is unsurpassed. In my opinion, use of that knowledge in the kind of deception characteristic of creationists destroys their integrity, subverts their credibility, and belittles the beliefs they try to promote. Is their religion dependent on subterfuge for validation and sustenance? I would rather be descended from the lowest worm than be specially created with great intellectual powers and use them in such a fashion.
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 3:21 PM on December 13, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Hespero at 09:19 AM on December 11, 2008 :

Anyhow..there are lots of examples of what you called  "partially evolved eyes".  Same with brains or any other structure.

If creationism was solid facts it would not be necessary to just make things up like the above paragraph.



The eye or more specifically sight is irreducibly complex its either an eye or its not their is no middle ground

 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:00 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And back on the transitional debate Stephen Jay Gould, arguably one of the greatest palientologists ever stated himself that there are no transitionals which led him to create the theory of puncuated equilibrium.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:03 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The eye or more specifically sight is irreducibly complex its either an eye or its not their is no middle ground

Completely, totally wrong!  From here:
EYE

"The human eye is a complex structure if there ever was one. Believers in intelligent design often cite it as an example of an irreducibly complex organ. But biologists are now familiar with several examples of intermediate forms of the eye, and also have much evidence that this special structure has evolved independently several times since life began. For example, the eye of an octopus shows much similarity to the human eye, even though the octopus comes from a completely different genetic line and its eye has much more limited capabilities. Thus, in response to the classic creationist taunt, “"What good is half an eye?, the best comeback is... It's better than no eye at all"."

Every biologist knows the eye is NOT irreducibly complex!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:03 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So an octopus has an eye with limited capabilities but you said it yourself it is similar a human eye so does it have the same construction? If so it does nothing to support your case if it's still a fully formed eye.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:37 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seriously, oct08. The eye, the bacterial flagellum and the bombardier beetle have been debunked as examples of irreducible complexity. We know clear and obvious steps of those lines of evolution.

Actually, the whole "irreducible complexity" thing has been debunked, but some new "example" will come out eventually.

But think about this: if your best examples supporting your theory are wrong, can't it be that your theory is wrong too?

And back on the transitional debate Stephen Jay Gould, arguably one of the greatest palientologists ever stated himself that there are no transitionals which led him to create the theory of puncuated equilibrium.
That logic fallacy is easy to spot. It's called "Appeal to authority" (quite common among creationists), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

So it's pretty old (and cheap).
More about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

The opposite is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.

None of those will work here. Sorry.

I'm a Toydarian. Mind tricks don't work on me, only money.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:45 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If I can't use an acclaimed paleontologist than why should you be able to use the beliefs of any other scientists in your arguments? And as for the eye being debunked exactly how was it defeated.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:53 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So an octopus has an eye with limited capabilities but you said it yourself it is similar a human eye so does it have the same construction? If so it does nothing to support your case if it's still a fully formed eye.

Yet there are a huge number of grades of eyes, from a simple photo chemical spot al the way up to the hawk eye, with all kinds of eyes inbetween.  Becasue there are such a huge number different eyes, eyes that started simple and got more complex, the eye is obviously NOT irreductibly complex.  We see all the stages it evolved through.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:58 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they can not distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from.
Is that an eye?

The eye or more specifically sight is irreducibly complex its either an eye or its not their is no middle ground
Hum... Are those eyes?

That's a nautilus. It has primitive eye that works as a pinhole camera. Wait... Would you call that "an eye"?

If I can't use an acclaimed paleontologist than why should you be able to use the beliefs of any other scientists in your arguments?
I posted pictures. What do YOU believe? Didn't i reduce that complexity? Aren't those "eyes" less complex, and still better than nothing?

And as for the eye being debunked exactly how was it defeated.
By looking. Oh, and thinking, but mostly looking.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:09 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry I probably should have stated this more clearly (this is gonna sound like a dodge) sight is irreducibly complex and all of those creatures still possess all that is necessary for sight.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:15 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry I probably should have stated this more clearly (this is gonna sound like a dodge) sight is irreducibly complex and all of those creatures still possess all that is necessary for sight.

How do you define "sight"?  The simplest organisms that can sense light  have only that, they can sense light.  Is this all that's necessary for sight????  We can see how these light sensitive proteins evolved , we can see how a lense evovled to focus the light.  As stated in other posts, we can see how all the stages of the modern eye evolved from looking at the varying types of eyes on earth right now.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:55 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

According to Webster sight is  the process, power, or function of seeing ; specifically : the physical sense by which light stimuli received by the eye are interpreted by the brain and constructed into a representation of the position, shape, brightness, and usually color of objects in space.

So it's just the ability to make out depth, objects, and positions.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 12:00 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

According to Webster sight is  the process, power, or function of seeing ; specifically : the physical sense by which light stimuli received by the eye are interpreted by the brain and constructed into a representation of the position, shape, brightness, and usually color of objects in space.

So it's just the ability to make out depth, objects, and positions.


So simple light detection isn't sight as you define it.  Well then, since we can see how simple light detection protiens evolved into eyes that could actually see, I guess you'll have to admit "sight is irreducibly complex and all of those creatures still possess all that is necessary for sight." is wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:19 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Light stimuli received by the what??

Ok, so we're no longer talking about the eye, but about the sight... I don't quite understand this...

Are you accepting the evolution of the eye, but not that of sight?

sight is irreducibly complex and all of those creatures still possess all that is necessary for sight
So your statement is, basically, "every creature that has sight has what it takes to have sight"?

No matter what your definition of "sight" is, that statement will always be true. And doesn't really help the "irreducible complexity" theory.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:27 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And back on the transitional debate Stephen Jay Gould, arguably one of the greatest palientologists ever stated himself that there are no transitionals which led him to create the theory of puncuated
equilibrium.


Absolutely untrue, here we see another example of your poor researching.  Gould never said anything of the sort!  He's what he really said:
Gould

"Various Creationists have used the quote:

Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
This makes it sound as if Gould was saying that all the evidence is missing. But, that's not what he meant. "Rare" does not mean "nonexistent". A small fraction of millions can still be a large number.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261 "

Notice where he says that transitinal forms are ABUNDANT between larger groups!  This directly refutes your totally wrong claim that Gould syas there are NO transitional fossils.
If you were honest, you would publicly retract this claim...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:29 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What exactly does he mean by larger groups?
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 3:24 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Larger than specification.

They have found lots of examples of fish to reptile, reptile to mammal, etc. He talks about kingdom, phylum, class (which shouldn't even exist if animals were created at once).

Do you know what a species is? I'm not talking about a dictionary definition. I mean dog, cat, human, alligator.
One of those examples doesn't belong with the rest. Can you tell? Why?

In any case, isn't the "they are abundant" part clear enough to make your statement invalid?

Please, be honest. It would be nice.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:58 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What exactly has creationest6 done wrong here; I mean he utilizes quotes from no creationests, he uses evidence, and has established a decent argument of which you all have failed to answer in full. You have given some somewhat mediocre examples of transitionals but ignored the rest of his argument and yet continue to thrash it as if it were composed by a three year old.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:57 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What exactly has creationest6 done wrong here; I mean he utilizes quotes from no creationests,

He takes them out of context, he snips them to make them seem to support a claim they clearly do not.  Typical, dishonest, creationist tactic.

he uses evidence,

Not real evidecne, all of which was totally disproven.

You have given some somewhat mediocre examples of transitionals

Yet he claims transitionals DON'T exist.  We've shown overwhelmingly that the DO exist.  He has been totally disproven.  

He tries to pull the same tactics you do, keep spitting out creationist lies, over and over again, even after they have been disproven and ignore the rebuttals.  No comment on your dishonest claim about Stephan Jay Gould?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:24 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What transitionals? Could you name them, I honestly don't believe the seal or manatee is in any way a fish. And as for your liar statements that's an attack on his character, an Ad Hominem.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:29 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 11:29 PM on December 23, 2008 :
What transitionals? Could you name them, I honestly don't believe the seal or manatee is in any way a fish. And as for your liar statements that's an attack on his character, an Ad Hominem.


Why would a manatee be like a fish?
Wouldn't you expect it to be more like a walrus or whale? Other mammals?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:57 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would a manatee be like a fish?
Wouldn't you expect it to be more like a walrus or whale? Other mammals?

thats my point it's a mammal not a transitional (it's a question towards a statement made much earlier)
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 12:10 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What transitionals? Could you name them, I honestly don't believe the seal or manatee is in any way a fish.

You're the only one talking about a seal and a fish, seems to me that's a strawman argument!  But a seal IS a transitional form between a land mammal and a completely sea going mammal!  Tell us why it isn't, bet you can't!  
And of sourse there are simply too many obviously transitional animals and fossils to list here.  How about the platypus?  or the crocodillians, for currently living transitionals?  
In the fossil record, how about the series of reptile to mammal fossils?  Or acanthostega?  Or Tiktaalik roseae?  Go ahead, explain to us why they aren't transitional, this outta be good for a few laughs...

And as for your liar statements that's an attack on his character, an Ad Hominem.

No that's an attack on the claims he makes and is easily proven.  It's like how you dishonestly claimed Stephan Gould said there were no transitionals, when actaully he said there were.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:12 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why can't a mammal be a transitional?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:12 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What exactly has creationest6 done wrong here;
Well, posting a huge amount of lies, instead of starting a separate thread for each lie.

I mean he utilizes quotes from no creationests,
Quote mining is dishonest.

As it is dishonest to disregard or ignore when the real complete quote is shown to you.

he uses evidence,
Quote just one example of of his "evidence".

and has established a decent argument
According to whom?

He posted (copypasted) a lot of things, which is at least unsuitable for a forum. And ignored most rebuttals.

of which you all have failed to answer in full.
To fail you have first to try.

Anyway it seems like you acknowledge that we succeeded partially.

So, please answer this one:

What did we fail to answer?

I assure you there's nothing there we can't answer.

You have given some somewhat mediocre examples of transitionals
How would an excellent example of a transitional look like?

Do you know that whales have vestigial hips? Do you believe they once had fully functional hips? Do you believe God made whales with vestigial hips?

but ignored the rest of his argument
It is not ONE argument. And it's not "his". Copypasting doesn't count.

I honestly don't believe the seal or manatee is in any way a fish.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Man... Show me somebody who does.

And as for your liar statements
Care to cite them? I don't know what you're talking about. Seriously.

that's an attack on his character, an Ad Hominem.
Nah, that's a creationist prerogative.

We don't treat evidence according to anyone's character, but on it's value.

thats my point it's a mammal not a transitional
There's no point there. We all know it's a mammal. And we all know it's changing to a fully aquatic species (do you acknowledge that, even if you don't call it "transitional"?).

So what's a platypus?

About Stephen Jay Gould: When will you take your claim back?

When will you acknowledge that it was quote mining?

Please, be honest.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:54 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sight is irreducibly complex and all of those creatures still possess all that is necessary for sight.
Not according to your definition of sight.
the physical sense by which light stimuli received by the eye
Does it have an eye?
are interpreted by the brain
Doesn't look like it has one...
and constructed into a representation of the position, shape,
No, and no.
brightness, and usually color of objects in space.
Nothing of the sort. Just brightness, but not related to objects in space.

Will you take your claim back?
Be honest, man. Please. Be the difference that makes the difference. =D



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:29 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Telling a creationist to be honest is like telling oxygen to not be an element.  You can't be a creationist and still tell true things, if you tried, you would probably explode.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 7:42 PM on January 1, 2009 | IP
Hammer

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Evolutionists believe, and teach, that the first cell formed itself without any outside intelligence or preexisting blueprint.
The idea that the first living cell formed itself by natural processes is not possible. All living cells are built by the instructions found in DNA, and DNA does not follow the natural laws of nature: therefore DNA is not natural.
All living things on the earth is composed of 100% left handed amino acids, and right handed sugars. The natural alignment of amino acids is 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids and if one amino acid tries to become natural and switches to right handed the living thing will become natural and die!
If one puts a living thing into a vacuum it will die and will still have all its cells. So if life is natural then the living thing should spring back to life, but instead it will begin to rot, and that is it’s amino acids all switching to their natural state and that is 50% left and 59% right.
If one put DNA on the head of a pin it would be invisible to the necked eye, but that DNA would contain more than a billion pages of precise information. That would include how to build hundreds of different kinds of cells and the instructions of where to put them.
The information in DNA is not composed of matter and had to come from a source that did not contain DNA. Only a spirit could have created a physical container to hold the instructions for every living thing on this earth. He also gave the instructions on how to continue that life, and that is the law of Biogenesis.
Only educated fools become the faith members of the church of evolution. One has to accept the creed of their church by faith since there are no hard facts to support it.
The so-called evidence given on this web site is simply conjecture without a hint of scientific proof to back up their very dumb claims.
Adam was made out of clay and was not alive until God breathed life into Adam’s nostrils and turned his amino acids to all left handed. Now when we die our spirit goes back to God and our bodies return to dirt.
On individual listed some modern day animals and called them links, and that individual needs to name the animal it just came from and the one that is next in line. While you are at it tell us why some decided to remain as they are. The environment does not possess foreknowledge to make decisions on what this or that animal needs to better itself.


.
           



-------
Dr. Hammer
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:47 PM on January 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr. Hammer - how do you explain what we see in the fossil record?  The fossil record clearly shows that life evolved over a vast period of time.

The tales in Genesis are attempts by earlier people to try to explain the beginnings of the earth and life on it.  Its natural for people to wonder about how the world got started.  Lacking the current scientific knowledge that we have today, they made up stories - myths.  Every culture has its Origins myths.  And that's all they are - myths.  The Bible is no exception.  

As for why life shows homochirality, it may simply be for no other reason than that L-amino acids and D-sugars/DNA are slightly more stable.  

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/question.htm

I'm not sure what you're getting at when you ask where did the information come that is stored in DNA.  DNA is a template that directs the sequence of amino acids that make up proteins.  Just because we don't have all the answers to how life began doesn't mean that it couldn't have come about without ID.  If you read some of the literature on abiogenesis you will see that there are some ideas as to how life may have arose on earth without the assistance of God.  

I agree with you on one thing - Life is truly a wonderful thing.  What seperates life from non-living matter?  What makes a living thing alive?  But unlike you, I think there is a natural explanation to it all.  I don't believe in supernatural spirits.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:37 PM on January 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr. Hammer - as to your argument that no new 'information' can be introduced into DNA, then how do you explain that there is a strain of Flavobacterium that can digest nylon?  

Nylon is a man-made product first introduced in 1935.  The bacteria in question was found to have a mutation that added a single nucleotide at the beginning of its gene for producing the enzyme that breaks down carbohydrates.  Because it takes 3 nucleotides to code for a single amino acid, adding a nucleotide at the beginning of the DNA gene changed the entire nature of the protein that was produced - an enzyme that enabled the bacteria to digest nylon.  The bacteria found the change/mutation to be beneficial and it survived to produce more bacteria with the same ability to digest nylon.

Now if that isn't a perfect example of Natural Selection and evolution in action, I don't know what is.  The DNA in the bacteria obviously carries new 'information' (we call it genetic code) to produce a new enzyme (nylonase).  A dramatic change brought about by a single mutation that proved favorable to the bacteria's ability to take advantage of surviving in a new environmental niche by being able to live in waste water containing man-made nylon byproducts.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:06 PM on January 4, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.