I said in an earlier thread that the evidence against evolution is more than they can handle. The following should demonstrate that, at least to honest people who haven't been tainted by evolutionist 'education':

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug12274.jpg

This fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old by evolutionists, is the earliest bat on record. Notice that there are no visible changes in the anatomy of this bat from it's modern offspring. Why not? Evolutionists still do not know for certain what the bat 'evolved' from. It is a flying mammal.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08252.jpg

No evolutionary change in this leaf. Why is that?

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08253.jpg

This fern is exactly like its descendants in our time. No evolutionary change.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08245.jpg

Another fossil fern that reveals no change from what we see in the same kind of fern in our day. (more coming)

More evidence that evolution has never taken place in living organisms and that all plants and animals obey the law of 'kind' that God established in Genesis:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08244.jpg

A living poplar leaf compared to a fossil dated millions of yrs old. No evolutionary change in this plant

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08243-1.jpg

The gingko hasn't changed at all. The wording above is from an evolutionist text on flowers.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08241-1.jpg

Nor has this flower seen any evolutionary change. Again the wording is from an evolutionist source. How did plants survive before pollination began? Pollinating plants have a symbiotic relationship with bees. How could nature let them survive unless they were created at the same time?

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08242-1.jpg

The commentary above says it all. But there is much more coming.

Personally, I don't believe in macro-evolution, but the evidence in this post isn't very damning. Remember that the mutations are said to be random. There is nothing that says these random mutations MUST result in the extinction of it's predecessor. What I mean is, just because there were bats "50 million years ago" doesn't mean they HAD to evolve into something else. Bats may have never randomly evolved anything "beneficial" since that time.

I'm not trying to argue with you Yankee that evolution happened as I don't believe it did. But this isn't a strong argument against it.

I like how we think Yankee Candle :)

Anyways, the most funny thing about this Evolutionary bull that scientists try to push is these "transitional fossils". There are just as many living fossils (which show no change) as there are supposed transitional fossils. The evolutionary bias really taints any scientific exploration.


What I mean is, just because there were bats "50 million years ago" doesn't mean they HAD to evolve into something else. Bats may have never randomly evolved anything "beneficial" since that time.

Or, just maybe, they never have evolved. There are many other living fossils showing absolutely no change from millions of years ago and today. A couple good ones you know are cockroaches and wasps.

The ratio of good mutations(and this is a very shaky term) to bad mutations is quite a high, unfavorable number.

Please be careful when you make broad statements ("...evolution never happened"). What exactly do you mean when you say evolution? I am under the assumption that you mean solely macroevolution, in which case I might agree with your statement. If, however, you mean the entire evolutionary theory (which includes adaptation / microevolution) then I would have to disagree with you. We have to be very careful when using what we consider to be "connotation words" (to borrow from Schaeffer). "Evolution" is one such word that requires definition, in my opinion.

Very true Xel'Naga. There is no denying evolution. We see it every day. However what I am referring to is microevolution.

In general, when I a referring to evolution, I am speaking of macroevolution.

Very true Xel'Naga. There is no denying evolution. We see it every day. However what I am referring to is microevolution.

In general, when I a referring to evolution, I am speaking of macroevolution.

If microevolution occurs then what stops macroevolution from occuring?
After all microevolution is small genetic changes over a short period of time. Macroevolution is cumulative genetic changes over a long period of time. What natural mechanism prevents macroevolution from occurring?:hmm:

"What exactly do you mean when you say evolution? I am under the assumption that you mean solely macroevolution, in which case I might agree with your statement."

That is what I mean. Variation within the kind is both logical and observable. Change from one kind of organism to a totally different kind is not logical, scientific, nor biblical.

Have a nice day.

There is so much visible evidence that evolution has never taken place in living organisms that I could literally take about 10 days to two weeks posting pictures like the following:

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/249.jpg



http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/250.jpg
As can be seen from this 94- to 90-million-year-old fossil frog (Eleutrhorodactylus), frogs in the amber are the same as their today's counterparts. A 94- to 90-million-year-old Sphaerodactylus gecko is one of the proofs that living things never underwent evolution





http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/251.jpg
A 30- to 25-million-year-old fossil centipede is identical to today’s centipedes





http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/550.jpgFungus gnat,
Diptera, 50-35 million years old as dated by evolutionists.


One would think that there would be some changes in their anatomical design in allt his time....right? Why no change. But oh, we've barely begun with the visible, verifiable evidence that evolution is a farce and should not be believed by honest people.

Are you planning on citing your source for your evidence or are we to just take your word for it? Come on, it's not that hard. There's a link button right underneath the white smiley face, just copy and past the url from the website you're taking your material from.

"If microevolution occurs then what stops macroevolution from occuring?"

The laws of Almighty God concerning 'kind' in Genesis one.

Secondly, such a change has never been observed from one kind of organism to another.

More evidence that evolution has never taken place in living organisms and that all plants and animals obey the law of 'kind' that God established in Genesis:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08244.jpg

A living poplar leaf compared to a fossil dated millions of yrs old. No evolutionary change in this plant



Well. . .those look like two vaguely similar leafs. . .help me out here on how this is so mind blowing.





http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08241-1.jpg

Nor has this flower seen any evolutionary change. Again the wording is from an evolutionist source. How did plants survive before pollination began?


Probably the same way non-pollinating plants survive today. . .or at least something similar.



Pollinating plants have a symbiotic relationship with bees. How could nature let them survive unless they were created at the same time?

Um. . .no. Not all plants have a symbiotic relationship with bees. Some plants have symbiotic relationships with bees, ants, and even hummingbirds and some simply rely on the wind. Symbiotic relationships developed over long periods of time as both organisms continued to interact with each other.



http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08242-1.jpg

The commentary above says it all. But there is much more coming.Weird. However, once again living fossils do not do anything to the theory of evolution. There's not stipulation that all things will constantly change, only that most things will change in response to their environment.

Again, source please? I'm assuming you're taking these from a website but even if you're actually scanning them into your computer and posting the image it's still impolite to note source your materials.

Are you planning on citing your source for your evidence or are we to just take your word for it? Come on, it's not that hard. There's a link button right underneath the white smiley face, just copy and past the url from the website you're taking your material from.

And are you going to continue giving your frivolous, third hand interpretations and quote men who are less than honest like you have been doing for several days?

(1) The black and white photos are from science book that is no longer in print by an author whose book I gave away long ago. (2) the leaf prints are from the U.S. Geological Survey team. You will have a hard time finding it on the web though. (3) the colored amber photos come from, strangely enough, an Islamic website.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/fossils_08.php (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/fossils_08.php)

Islamics, at least most of them, believe in creation also.

I will post other sources as I go but not on every posting.

The following are more examples of creatures that were encased in amber, dated by evolutionists in the millions of yrs old and yet reveal no evolutionary change!


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/595.jpg

Ant, 50-35 million years old.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/596.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/597.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/598.jpg
Rove beetle, 50-35 million years old.Spider with web, 50-35 million years old.A moth and an ant head, 24 million years old.

There is so much visible evidence that evolution has never taken place in living organisms that I could literally take about 10 days to two weeks posting pictures like the following:


And yet, apparently, you can't find the time to post your source.



A 30- to 25-million-year-old fossil centipede is identical to today’s centipedes


Since I don't know what specific kind of centipede that is supposed to be I can't be specific but I can see pretty quickly that those aren't identical. For starters the one encased in amber has significantly longer antenna





One would think that there would be some changes in their anatomical design in allt his time....right? Why no change. But oh, we've barely begun with the visible, verifiable evidence that evolution is a farce and should not be believed by honest people.


Why would one think that there would be readily visible changes in their anatomical design? Most evolutionary changes are exceptionally small and, once again, evolutionary change is a function of time and environment. You've covered the time portion but continue to ignore the environment. If these organisms adapt to their environment to the point that small changes are no longer significantly beneficial how would natural selection favor them over their stationary counterparts?

The following are more examples of creatures that were encased in amber, dated by evolutionists in the millions of yrs old and yet reveal no evolutionary change!


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/595.jpg

Ant, 50-35 million years old.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/596.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/597.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/598.jpg
Rove beetle, 50-35 million years old.Spider with web, 50-35 million years old.A moth and an ant head, 24 million years old.

Are you an entomologist? Who dated these artifacts? Who identified the insects inside as identical to modern insects? What, specifically, can we observe about these organisms that leads us to your conclusions? What, then, leads you to suspect that even if your conclusions are correct this is evidence against evolution?

"Some plants have symbiotic relationships with bees, ants, and even hummingbirds and some simply rely on the wind. Symbiotic relationships developed over long periods of time as both organisms continued to interact with each other."

Symbiotic relationships, regardless as to exactly when they were made, had to develop at the same time in order for the organisms to survive. Shall we credit nature....or God?

God meant just what He said in His word and He was NOT ambiguous nor obscure about it.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1

"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Jesus in Mark 10:6

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:12

" And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21

And so it is reflected in the photos being posted on this thread. But notice dear readers, those of us who use the scriptures to defend our position as opposed to those who don't....or perhaps I should say 'can't.'

Look, you can post the pictures of every living fossil there is but until you answer the questions I've already posed they do not add up to an actual argument. Here's a list you can get started on.

Plants



Amborellaceae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amborellaceae)
Araucaria araucana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araucaria_araucana) the Monkey Puzzle tree
Cycads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycad)
Ginkgo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginkgo) tree (Ginkgoaceae)
Horsetails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsetail) Equisetum (Equisetaceae)
Metasequoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasequoia) Dawn Redwood (Cupressaceae; a borderline example, related to Sequoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia) and Sequoiadendron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron))
Sciadopitys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciadopitys) tree (Sciadopityaceae)
Whisk ferns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisk_fern) Psilotum (Psilotaceae)
Welwitschia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welwitschia) (Welwitschiaceae)
Wollemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wollemia) tree (Araucariaceae; a borderline example, related to Agathis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathis) and Araucaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araucaria))


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Living_fossil&action=edit&section=4)] Fungi



Neolecta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolecta)


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Living_fossil&action=edit&section=5)] Animals



Vertebrates

Mammals

Cypriot mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_mouse) (Mus cypriacus)
Red Panda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Panda) (Ailurus fulgens)
Okapi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi) (Okapia johnstoni)
Laotian Rock Rat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Rock_Rat) (Laonastes aenigmamus)
Volcano rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano_rabbit) (Romerolagus diazi)
Amami rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amami_rabbit) (Pentalagus furnessi)
Iriomote cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iriomote_cat) (Prionailurus iriomotensis)
Monito del Monte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monito_del_Monte) (Dromiciops gliroides)
monotremes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme) (the platypus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus) and echidna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echidna))
Mountain Beaver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Beaver) (Aplodontia rufa)
Opossums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum)
Przewalski's Horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_Horse) (Equus ferus przewalskii, Equus przewalskii or Equus caballus przewalskii, classification is debated)


Birds

Acanthisittidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthisittidae) (New Zealand "wrens")
Hoatzin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin) (Ophisthocomus hoazin)
Broad-billed Sapayoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-billed_Sapayoa) (Sapayoa aenigma)
Bearded Reedling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearded_Reedling) (Panurus biarmicus)
Coliiformes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coliiformes) (mousebirds, 6 living species in 2 genera)
Magpie-goose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpie-goose) (Anseranas semipalmata)


Reptiles

Pig-nosed turtle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig-nosed_turtle)
Crocodilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia) (crocodiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile), gavials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavial) and alligators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator))
Tuataras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara) (Sphenodon punctatus and Sphenodon guntheri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphenodon_guntheri))


Amphibians

Purple frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_frog) (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)


Bony fish

Bowfin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowfin) (Amia calva)
Coelacanth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth) (the lobed-finned Latimeria menadoensis and Latimeria chalumnae)
Queensland lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_lungfish) (Neoceratodus fosteri)
Sturgeons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeons) and paddlefish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddlefish) (Acipenseriformes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acipenseriformes))


Sharks

Frilled shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark) (Chlamydoselachus anguineus)







Invertebrates

Insects

Mantophasmatodea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantophasmatodea) (gladiators; a few living species)
Mymarommatid wasps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mymarommatidae) (10 living species in genus Palaeomymar (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palaeomymar&action=edit&redlink=1))
Nevrorthidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevrorthidae) (3 species-poor genera)
Notiothauma reedi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notiothauma_reedi) (a scorpionfly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpionfly) relative)
Orussidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orussidae) (parasitic wood wasps; about 70 living species in 16 genera)
Peloridiidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloridiidae) (peloridiid bugs; fewer than 30 living species in 13 genera)
Sikhotealinia zhiltzovae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhotealinia_zhiltzovae) (a jurodid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurodidae) beetle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle))
Syntexis libocedrii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntexis_libocedrii) (Anaxyelidae cedar wood wasp)


Crustaceans

glypheoid lobsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glypheoidea) (3 living species: Neoglyphea inopinata, N. neocaledonica, and Laurentaeglyphea neocaledonica)
Stomatopods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_Shrimp) (Mantis shrimp)
Triops cancriformis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triops_cancriformis) (also known as Tadpole shrimp) (a notostracid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notostracans) crustacean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crustacean))


Molluscs

Nautilina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilina) (e.g. Nautilus pompilius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus_pompilius))
Neopilina galateae (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neopilina_galateae&action=edit&redlink=1), a monoplacophorid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoplacophora) mollusc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusca)
Ennucula superba (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ennucula_superba&action=edit&redlink=1) (Nut clam (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nut_clam&action=edit&redlink=1))


Other invertebrates

crinoids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinoid)
Horseshoe crabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab) (only 4 living species of the class Xiphosura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiphosura), family Limulidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limulidae): Limulus polyphemus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limulus_polyphemus),Tachypleus gigas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachypleus_gigas), Tachypleus tridentatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachypleus_tridentatus) and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoscorpius_rotundicauda))
Lingula anatina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingula_%28genus%29) (an inarticulate brachiopod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod))
onychophorans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychophora)
Valdiviathyris quenstedti (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valdiviathyris_quenstedti&action=edit&redlink=1) (a craniforman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniforma) brachiopod)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossils

More insects encased in amber and perfectly preseved and yet none reveal any evolutionary change:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/611.jpg

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/612.jpg

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/613.jpg
1. A large fly in a 24-million-year old Dominican amber.
2. A male winged ant, Hymenoptera, Formicidae, 25 million years old.
3. An adult planthopper in a 24-million-year old Dominican amber.


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/604.jpg

4. Fungus gnat, 50-35 million years old.

More coming!

"Look, you can post the pictures of every living fossil there is but until you answer the questions I've already posed they do not add up to an actual argument. Here's a list you can get started on."

Gee, let's thank him for the list. But I've got the photos and there are more than he listed. Anyone with common sense and honesty can observe that there has been no evolutionary change in any of them.

Symbiotic relationships, regardless as to exactly when they were made, had to develop at the same time in order for the organisms to survive. Shall we credit nature....or God?


Correct, they had to develop at the same time. Take the example of human beings and wild almonds. Wild almond trees can contain potentially fatal chemicals that break down into cyanide - producing an intensely bitter taste. However, every once and a while a mutation causes a wild almond tree to produce almonds with no cyanide. As human beings came into contact with almond trees we naturally noticed and ate the almonds from the "good" trees. Eventually people started taking the seeds from the "good" trees and planting them, thereby increasing their numbers because usually wild almond trees with good almonds don't reproduce as their nuts are quickly discovered and eaten by birds. At the end of this process the mutated almond trees get to propogate and we get to eat almonds. It's not a perfect example, but it somewhat makes my point.

Are you an entomologist? Who dated these artifacts? Who identified the insects inside as identical to modern insects? What, specifically, can we observe about these organisms that leads us to your conclusions? What, then, leads you to suspect that even if your conclusions are correct this is evidence against evolution?

Let me reflect his question back at him: "Are you an entomologist?"

I am a retired high school science/history teacher and I have a degree in education. I have taught school for 26 yrs and I am an ex-evolutionist.

"Look, you can post the pictures of every living fossil there is but until you answer the questions I've already posed they do not add up to an actual argument. Here's a list you can get started on."

Gee, let's thank him for the list. But I've got the photos and there are more than he listed. Anyone with common sense and honesty can observe that there has been no evolutionary change in any of them.


Does that mean if I post pictures of organisms that are different from their fossilized ancestors that PROVES evolution? If not why? Does that mean that just showing pictures is insufficient evidence? What does this imply about your current methodology?

Let me reflect his question back at him: "Are you an entomologist?"

I am a retired high school science/history teacher and I have a degree in education. I have taught school for 26 yrs and I am an ex-evolutionist.

As a high school teacher would you ever accept a paper from a student who displayed such poor support for their arguments by not answering questions or going into meaningful detail about their conclusions, choosing instead to merely post pictures with little or no supported text explaining their significance?

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/611.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/612.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/613.jpg
(1) A large fly in a 24-million-year old Dominican amber.
(2)A male winged ant, Hymenoptera, Formicidae, 25 million years old.
(3) An adult planthopper in a 24-million-year old Dominican amber.


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/614.jpg(4) Crane fly, 50 - 35 million yrs old

Still, we observe no change in organisms encased is amber. If I were an evolutionist I would find it refreshing to find something like a bee that is showing a change into a bird or an ant into a wasp. But alas, there is nothing like that in the fossil record anywhere.

"As a high school teacher would you ever accept a paper from a student who displayed such poor support for their arguments ..."

I would call this one of the worst cases of 'denial' I have ever seen, but unfortunately, denial runs deep in both the atheist and theistic evolutionist camp. They live in a dream land, far away from the land of common sense.

If microevolution occurs then what stops macroevolution from occuring?
After all microevolution is small genetic changes over a short period of time. Macroevolution is cumulative genetic changes over a long period of time. What natural mechanism prevents macroevolution from occurring?:hmm:

The fact that mutations take away from total genetic library, never add to it. If genetic mutations can't add to genetic information, then how can we ever evolve to advanced life forms. Also it speaks specifically in the bible of "after their kinds" Whatever a "kind" is defined as in the Bible, it clearly shows that an animal will always be what it has been created. Another point is we have never observed macroevolution.

Macroevolution is just wishful thinking.

Still, we observe no change in organisms encased is amber. If I were an evolutionist I would find it refreshing to find something like a bee that is showing a change into a bird or an ant into a wasp. But alas, there is nothing like that in the fossil record anywhere.

Here's the problem though, how do you know they haven't changed? Just because they look the same? What about internal changes? These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I ask for more details. Think quality instead of quantity.

"Note that just because a living fossil is a surviving representative of an archaic lineage does not necessarily require that it retains all of the "primitive" features (plesiomorphies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiomorphy)) of the lineage it is descended from; that is, they may possess one to many derived features (autapomorphies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autapomorphy)), that have evolved since the time of their lineage's divergence. All that is required is that they can be unambiguously assigned to an otherwise extinct lineage (rarely are they identical to the fossil forms). See for example the uniquely and highly autapomorphic oxpeckers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxpecker), which are not "true" living fossils (as no fossils are known yet) but nonetheless appear to be the only survivors of an ancient lineage related to starlings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starling) and mockingbirds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockingbird)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossils#cite_note-0)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossils

Once again, even if we take this evidence at face value, what does it prove? That not every organism undergoes drastic change over time? Since that is not a prediction of evolutionary theory what is the relevance?

"As a high school teacher would you ever accept a paper from a student who displayed such poor support for their arguments ..."

I would call this one of the worst cases of 'denial' I have ever seen, but unfortunately, denial runs deep in both the atheist and theistic evolutionist camp. They live in a dream land, far away from the land of common sense.

So. . .you accepted papers that were nothing more than a series of pictures followed by one or two sentences as convincing arguments? Help me out here friend, I'm trying to throw you a bone.

The fact that mutations take away from total genetic library, never add to it. If genetic mutations can't add to genetic information, then how can we ever evolve to advanced life forms. Also it speaks specifically in the bible of "after their kinds" Whatever a "kind" is defined as in the Bible, it clearly shows that an animal will always be what it has been created. Another point is we have never observed macroevolution.

Macroevolution is just wishful thinking.

What, specifically, do you mean by "adding" to a total genetic library? That kind of sounds like you're just rewording the whole "no beneficial mutation" argument that has already shown to be false.

And are you going to continue giving your frivolous, third hand interpretations and quote men who are less than honest like you have been doing for several days?

(1) The black and white photos are from science book that is no longer in print by an author whose book I gave away long ago. (2) the leaf prints are from the U.S. Geological Survey team. You will have a hard time finding it on the web though. (3) the colored amber photos come from, strangely enough, an Islamic website.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/fossils_08.php (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/fossils_08.php)

Islamics, at least most of them, believe in creation also.

I will post other sources as I go but not on every posting.

Thankyou, that does help but I would encourage you to cite every source. It helps in keeping the conversation on topic and avoids confusion.

What, specifically, do you mean by "adding" to a total genetic library? That kind of sounds like you're just rewording the whole "no beneficial mutation" argument that has already shown to be false.

What mutation increases genetic information? Mutations only mess up what is already written. From there more and more mutations take away/mess up/make unusable more and more genetic information

What mutation increases genetic information? Mutations only mess up what is already written. From there more and more mutations take away/mess up/make unusable more and more genetic information

But it's already been shown that mutations can have beneficial results. . .are you altogether sure you're using the term "genetic information" correctly? After all, many differences between organisms aren't determined by the amount of genetic information as much as the sequence in which their genes are "activated" during development.

As a creationist, it pains me when folks like Yankee Candle make creationists look bad by refusing to address pertinent questions.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/260.jpg


A lizard amber fossil dated at 30 million yrs old by evolutionists. The skeleton reveals no evolutionary change from modern lizards. The theistic evolutionists continue to use the same tortured logic to escape the obvious. But since they do it with God's Word is it really surprising that they are guilty of it with what God created in nature?



http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/258.jpg



http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/259.jpg



(2) A 25-Million-Year-Old Fossil Mantis in Amber
(3)A 30- to 25-Million-Year-Old Fossil Termite in Amber






Still no anatomical changes can be observed. I must point out that unlike evolution...this is empirical science (that is, observable results).


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/263.jpg


(4)A 24-million- year-old fossil moth.


Moths haven't changed either. They remain as God created them and all organisms stay within the genetic limitations (kind) that God placed in the DNA.

As a creationist, it pains me when folks like Yankee Candle make creationists look bad by refusing to address pertinent questions.

I have been in and out of the office all day and this is the first of your posts I have seen.

What 'pertinent questions'? Are you referring to that theistic evolutionist, Itinerant Lurker? All he does is pester me with mostly useless questions, ridiculous speculations, and shallow conclusions about what is very, very obvious. He isn't being honest in his conclusions in the first place so I am not much concerned about what he thinks.

What mutation increases genetic information? Mutations only mess up what is already written. From there more and more mutations take away/mess up/make unusable more and more genetic information

Ask him for an example of a beneficial mutation which was not genetically engineered.

Does that mean if I post pictures of organisms that are different from their fossilized ancestors that PROVES evolution? If not why? Does that mean that just showing pictures is insufficient evidence? What does this imply about your current methodology?

Find them. Post them.

But it's already been shown that mutations can have beneficial results. . .are you altogether sure you're using the term "genetic information" correctly? After all, many differences between organisms aren't determined by the amount of genetic information as much as the sequence in which their genes are "activated" during development.


Yes, mutations can have beneficial results. However they can't add to the genetic information (ie. tell an organism to start growing arms) They only take away from what was already established.

Yankee,

Please explain your logic here. How do "living fossils" prove that macroevolution never occurred?

Ask him for an example of a beneficial mutation which was not genetically engineered.

Sickle cell anemia

Yankee,

Please explain your logic here. How do "living fossils" prove that macroevolution never occurred?

Please, yes. I already posted a fairly complete list of all of these living fossils. Explain how you arrive at your conclusion using this evidence. What are expecting to prove by posting picture after picture of things we already know?

"Well. . .those look like two vaguely similar leafs. . .help me out here on how this is so mind blowing."

More tortured logic...just like the 'logic' we got conerning the plesiosuar that was fished out of the Pacific Ocean by the Japanese. The countour, pinnation, and symetrical design of the two leaves is the same. The only obvious difference is that the two leaves are not the same leaf (i.e. the bruises).

One thing I do know about evolution is that it effects a persons eyesight.:hmm:

Yankee,

Please explain your logic here. How do "living fossils" prove that macroevolution never occurred?

Is that question some kind of a joke?

If you are a 'creationist' as you tell us then you are supposed to be on my side (& more importantly on the side of what the scriptures teach).

Answer: If, hypothetically, you wanted to prove to a challenger that McDonalds restaurant has never changed its symbol (the golden arches) since its inception as a fast food chain, then what would you logically have to do? You would Google McDonalds, find their history and hopefully prodcue the picture of the first McDonalds restaurant and show it to him...arches intact!

Fella, I don't mean to be harsh but that was one of the most shallow questions I have EVER been asked on any website I have ever posted on.

Is that question some kind of a joke?

If you are a 'creationist' as you tell us then you are supposed to be on my side (& more importantly on the side of what the scriptures teach).

Answer: If, hypothetically, you wanted to prove to a challenger that McDonalds restaurant has never changed its symbol (the golden arches) since its inception as a fast food chain, then what would you logically have to do? You would Google McDonalds, find their history and hopefully prodcue the picture of the first McDonalds restaurant and show it to him...arches intact!

Fella, I don't mean to be harsh but that was one of the most shallow questions I have EVER been asked on any website I have ever posted on.

So, you're suggesting that if you find that the McDonald's arches haven't changed since its inception, that fact proves that Burger King's have not as well? I think his question is entirely valid, and if you cannot answer it then at least be honest enough to admit that.

As far as "being on your side", while OE does not hold my view I respect his willingness to question evidence for his side that does not seem to add up. It doesn't say a thing about his faith or creationist beliefs to admit that we don't have all the answers. Certainly, a level of humility is not a bad thing.

There is yet more revealing that God's creatures, true to the law of 'kind' established in Genesis, have not changed.


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/264.jpg


(1) A 40-million- year-old fossil midge.



http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/270.jpg

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/271.jpg

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/images_fossils/272.jpg
(2) Beetle, Coleoptera, 24 million years old.
(3) Beetle, Coleoptera, 24 million years old.
(4) A large spider, a wood gnat, a fly and a mite in a 24-million-year-old Dominican amber.


















More creatures embedded in amber that reveal no evolutionary change. THat is because evolution of one kind to another has never occurred. It cannot because God's law concerning 'kind' will not be violated by nature which He created.

Find them. Post them.

"The insect fossil record extends back some 400 million years to the lower Devonian (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/GeologicalTimeMachine.htm). The Pterygotes (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/PhylumArthropoda/Subphylum-Hexapoda/subphylum_insecta_fossils.htm) (winged forms) underwent a major radiation in the Carboniferous. The Endopterygota (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/PhylumArthropoda/Subphylum-Hexapoda/subphylum_insecta_fossils.htm)* underwent a another major radiation in the Permian. Survivors of the mass extinction at the PT boundary evolved in the Triassic to what are essentially the modern Insecta Orders that persist to modern times. Most modern insect families appeared in the Jurassic, and further diversity probably in genera occurred in the Cretaceous. It is believed that by the Tertiary, there existed many of what are still modern genera; hence, most insects in amber are, indeed, members of extant genera. What seems most fascinating is that insects diversified in a brief 100 million years (give or take) into the modern forms that exist with minor change in modern times."
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/evolution-segues/insect_evolution.htm

Here's the thing, we expect to find examples of modern genera trapped in amber from this era because that is where the fossil record indicates they originated from. What we do not expect is to find examples of modern genera represented in all geological layers according to evolutionary theory whereas we expect exactly that to occur according to YEC. So what does observation tell us?

The fossil record shows small, wingless insects first appearing about 380 million years ago. Next come winged insects at about 320 million years along with exceptionally large (20 cm. wingspan) dragon fly like critters that eventually became extinct. Then we see the arrival of most of our modern orders with the exception of butterflies and moths.

"For example, there are no authenticated fossils of moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera (http://www.kendall-bioresearch.co.uk/lepid.htm)) before the Eocene period and most of those found so far come from Oligocene and Miocene deposits (c. 25-40 million years old). The relatively recent arrival of this latter group onto the insect scene (with mouthparts specially adapted for sucking nectar from flowers) is almost certainly linked to the appearance and spread of flowing plants in the late Mesosoic and early Tertiary eras."
http://www.kendall-bioresearch.co.uk/fossil.htm

This is an example of how posting images without detailed descriptions, sources, and supported conclusions can result in misleading and just downright incorrect arguments. The insects preserved in amber do not support your conclusion and, in fact, the fossil record of insects in regards to moths and butterflies supports an evolutionary view. As does the fact that all insects do not appear at the same time in the fossil record.

Oh, and before you start criticizing this with things like "the fossil record isn't reliable" you may want to take a look at the dates you posted corresponding with all those pictures - they confirm the given evolutionary time-line for the development of insects.

Is that question some kind of a joke?

No, I was being serious.



If you are a 'creationist' as you tell us then you are supposed to be on my side (& more importantly on the side of what the scriptures teach).


Neither of us believes in evolution, but that does not mean that I have to use some of the faulty logic that you are using. That you are an inept defender of creationism is manifest considering that your silly logic completely fails to account for the evolutionist's explanation of living fossils. I urge you to discard such fallacious reasoning and instead seek a sound argument against the evolutionist's explanation of living fossils. You are bold in your words, but your arguments are tired and are routinely and effortlessly refuted by thinking persons. Frankly, creationists like you are doing more harm than good.


Answer: If, hypothetically, you wanted to prove to a challenger that McDonalds restaurant has never changed its symbol (the golden arches) since its inception as a fast food chain, then what would you logically have to do? You would Google McDonalds, find their history and hopefully prodcue the picture of the first McDonalds restaurant and show it to him...arches intact!


Let's get to the crux of the issue, shall we?

You really have no business trying to base your argument on fossil evidence, seeing that you evolution is not an option for you. I can at least admit that evolution is a viable explanation of the fossil evidence, even though I do not think it is the best explanation.


Fella, I don't mean to be harsh but that was one of the most shallow questions I have EVER been asked on any website I have ever posted on.

How was it shallow?

Say, are you the guy that denies plate tectonics too?

As far as "being on your side", while OE does not hold my view I respect his willingness to question evidence for his side that does not seem to add up. It doesn't say a thing about his faith or creationist beliefs to admit that we don't have all the answers. Certainly, a level of humility is not a bad thing.


Thanks, friend. You're alright... ;)

Really though, the sheer arrogance of many creationists is just a huge thorn in our (creationists) side. Worse, though, is the faulty logic so often employed by creationist apologists. As a seeker and lover of truth, it is of utmost importance to me that I discern between sound and unsound logic, and it is just as important to me that I call my brothers or sisters out when they have fallen victim to erroneous reasoning. Too often though, I am met with accusations that I am not a creationist, or worse, not a Christian. But I will continue doing what God has called me to do.

"So, you're suggesting that if you find that the McDonald's arches haven't changed since its inception, that fact proves that Burger King's have not as well?"

That is an 'if'. But there are no 'if's' with scripture. The Lord Jesus told us that the world was created by God, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that the flood of Noah actually occurred in history. Theistic evolutionists simply don't believe Him.

Theistic evolutionists cannot stand to have their beliefs exposed for what they are. My experience has been that not one in ten of them will ever admit the error of believing a theory that is so contrary to both scripture and the facts. They place great trust in even atheistic evolutionists about the facts but almost none in the words of Jesus Christ about the same subject.

"As far as "being on your side", while OE does not hold my view I respect his willingness to question evidence for his side that does not seem to add up."

Yes, I remember you. You question everything...including scripture.

That is an 'if'. But there are no 'if's' with scripture. The Lord Jesus told us that the world was created by God, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that the flood of Noah actually occurred in history. Theistic evolutionists simply don't believe Him.


If you want to invoke a supernatural origin of all these things then just go ahead and do it. It's quite possible that God just broke all the laws of physics and logic and just made it happen that way. Then we can deal with the theological contradictions of that claim. But you can't have it both ways, why are you trying to claim that physical evidence supports your claim when it so clearly does not?

No, I was being serious.

Gosh, you had me fooled. ;)

"Neither of us believes in evolution, but that does not mean that I have to use some of the faulty logic that you are using."

What faulty logic? You mean the logic that Moses gave us a good idea about the age of the earth by writing the chronologies in Genesis 5 and that the family lineage of Jesus Christ as listed in Luke 3 is legitimate and that the history of mankind is approximately 6,000 to 7,000 yrs old...instead of the atheist/evolutionist position that it is millions of yrs old?

You see, my friend, no matter how you cut it, you cannot stretch the geneology of Christ back millions of yrs with the 77 names listed in Lukes gospel as part of the Lord's lineage.

Tell the readers how that logic is faulty and support it with scripture.

Thanks, friend. You're alright... ;)

Really though, the sheer arrogance of many creationists is just a huge thorn our (creationists) side. Worse, though, is the faulty logic so often employed by creationist apologists. As a seeker and lover of truth, it is of utmost importance to me that I discern between sound and unsound logic, and it is just as important to me that I call my brothers or sisters out when they have fallen victime to erroneous reasoning. Too often though, I am met with accusations that I am not a creationist, or worse, a Christian. But I will continue doing what God has called me to do.

There are some - and it's not just creationists, but people of all sorts of religious and secular belief systems, that if you back off of any claim or data that someone on your side puts forth, then you weaken your side's arguments. Not only is that a logical fallacy, but it ends up hurting in the long term worse than it helps in the short term.

Certainly, if you don't hold to the mainstream view, you're bound to ruffle some feathers. But God's grace trumps all, even the lack of grace of some of His followers.:)

Gosh, you had me fooled. ;)


Gosh, sarcastic much? :rolleyes:




What faulty logic?

If you attentively re-read my last post to you, you will see that I was referring to your argument based upon living fossils.



You mean the logic that Moses gave us a good idea about the age of the earth by writing the chronologies in Genesis 5 and that the family lineage of Jesus Christ as listed in Luke 3 is legitimate and that the history of mankind is approximately 6,000 to 7,000 yrs old...instead of the atheist/evolutionist position that it is millions of yrs old?

<snip>



No.

Please pay attention and stick to the issue. You ignored just about everything I said to you in my last post. Will you address it, or are you not really interested in discussing this?

"So, you're suggesting that if you find that the McDonald's arches haven't changed since its inception, that fact proves that Burger King's have not as well?"

That is an 'if'. But there are no 'if's' with scripture. The Lord Jesus told us that the world was created by God, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that the flood of Noah actually occurred in history. Theistic evolutionists simply don't believe Him.

Theistic evolutionists cannot stand to have their beliefs exposed for what they are. My experience has been that not one in ten of them will ever admit the error of believing a theory that is so contrary to both scripture and the facts. They place great trust in even atheistic evolutionists about the facts but almost none in the words of Jesus Christ about the same subject.

"As far as "being on your side", while OE does not hold my view I respect his willingness to question evidence for his side that does not seem to add up."

Yes, I remember you. You question everything...including scripture.

I question our interpretation of scripture. I question whether God intended Genesis 1 to be literal. And, through prayer and study, I have been answered on both.

I do remember that discussing this subject to you is only slightly less painful than :B, so I'm going to bow out. Since you've decided that reason, logic and scriptural interpretation are not valid arguments, my bag is unfortunately empty.

I question our interpretation of scripture. I question whether God intended Genesis 1 to be literal. And, through prayer and study, I have been answered on both.

I do remember that discussing this subject to you is only slightly less painful than :B, so I'm going to bow out. Since you've decided that reason, logic and scriptural interpretation are not valid arguments, my bag is unfortunately empty.

" I question our interpretation of scripture. I question whether God intended Genesis 1 to be literal. And, through prayer and study, I have been answered on both.

No, you haven't. I think you just fooled yourself. God means what He says, Jesus confirmed what Genesis said and so did the apostles who wrote the New Testament. You just don't believe it.

Gosh, sarcastic much? :rolleyes:


And what was that if not sarcastic?


If you attentively re-read my last post to you, you will see that I was referring to your argument based upon living fossils.


The argument is not based on fact. The non-change in the examples I gave is fact.

"Please pay attention and stick to the issue. You ignored just about everything I said to you in my last post. Will you address it, or are you not really interested in discussing this?"

Don't tell me to 'pay attention', fella. You have no authority here. I didn't ignore you but you didn't say anything worth commenting on...just opinions. But I did give you some facts above (which you deliberately skirted!). Now what is your feeling about;

"What faulty logic? You mean the logic that Moses gave us a good idea about the age of the earth by writing the chronologies in Genesis 5 and that the family lineage of Jesus Christ as listed in Luke 3 is legitimate and that the history of mankind is approximately 6,000 to 7,000 yrs old...instead of the atheist/evolutionist position that it is millions of yrs old?"

I urge the readers to wait to see if he answers this vital question. I looked for an answer to this but did not see one.

I question our interpretation of scripture. I question whether God intended Genesis 1 to be literal. And, through prayer and study, I have been answered on both.

I do remember that discussing this subject to you is only slightly less painful than :B, so I'm going to bow out. Since you've decided that reason, logic and scriptural interpretation are not valid arguments, my bag is unfortunately empty.

Yes, it is hard to be confronted with the truth about the lies you have accepted. Scripture just doesn't say what you want it to say...how frustrating.

Genesis 1 is literal because Jesus Christ said it is and because the apostles who wrote of the events in Genesis also confirmed that they were literal. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Mark 10:6

You are free to tell the readers why you think that Jesus words are not literal.

The fact that mutations take away from total genetic library, never add to it. If genetic mutations can't add to genetic information, then how can we ever evolve to advanced life forms. Also it speaks specifically in the bible of "after their kinds" Whatever a "kind" is defined as in the Bible, it clearly shows that an animal will always be what it has been created. Another point is we have never observed macroevolution.

Macroevolution is just wishful thinking.


Why cannot mutations add information? If they can take away information then what stops the mutations from adding the information back?

One thing I have never been able to nail down from talking with YEC creationist or reading YEC creationist material is the definition of a "kind." For example is kind just one canine animal or is the different species of canines like foxes, coyotes, jackals, wolves, etc. The reason I ask is one argument most YEC creationists use for fitting all the animals on Noah's ark is that there a limited number of "kinds" and later those "kinds" adapted to other "kinds." So what is the definition of a "kind"?

God bless

Yes, it is hard to be confronted with the truth about the lies you have accepted. Scripture just doesn't say what you want it to say...how frustrating.

Genesis 1 is literal because Jesus Christ said it is and because the apostles who wrote of the events in Genesis also confirmed that they were literal. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Mark 10:6

You are free to tell the readers why you think that Jesus words are not literal.

Looking at the whole text for this part of Mark 10. Jesus was answering the Pharisees who were asking Jesus about marriage and divorce. Knowing that the Pharisees were sticklers for every letter and word of the Torah (cough cough), Jesus answered them using scripture they understood because as you know the Pharisees like to try to trip up Jesus on how He would respond. Now in the verse you quoted. Did Jesus say how old the earth was? Did He say how long ago it is was created? No He quoted the first version of the creation narrative to respond to the Pharisees.

God bless

"Jesus was answering the Pharisees who were asking Jesus about marriage and divorce. Knowing that the Pharisees were sticklers for every letter and word of the Torah (cough cough),"

Need a coughdrop?

The pharisees were correct about the literal history of the O.T. They were wrong in their application of the teachings as Jesus attempted to show them. But in this regard they were closer to scripture than you are. It was the saducees who denied the literal teachings of the O.T. So which group are you closer to?

P.S. still waiting for Old Earther to answer my question above which was highlighted in red.

Why cannot mutations add information? If they can take away information then what stops the mutations from adding the information back?


A quick course on mutations:

Mutations occur in four different manners. Substitution, Deletion, Insertion and Frameshift. To give an example of each I am going to use the sentence "Hello, my name is John."

Substitution
Heoll, my eamn is Jonh. The codons, or in this case letters, are just switched around with each other

Deletion
Hllo, m nme is Joh. Letters are just deleted. Of course it can get a whole lot more complicated and more letters, even words may be deleted.

Insertion
Heollo muy naame izs Jzohn. Base pairs, or letters, are added into the sequence.

Frameshift
Ellom yn amei sj ohn. Frameshift deletes a codon and moves everything over. The "H" was deleted, so everything was moved to the left to fill up each words space.

So as you can see only existing code can be manipulated to even have a mutation.

One thing I have never been able to nail down from talking with YEC creationist or reading YEC creationist material is the definition of a "kind." For example is kind just one canine animal or is the different species of canines like foxes, coyotes, jackals, wolves, etc. The reason I ask is one argument most YEC creationists use for fitting all the animals on Noah's ark is that there a limited number of "kinds" and later those "kinds" adapted to other "kinds." So what is the definition of a "kind"?

God bless
As for your "kinds" it is not just creationists who have troubles labeling them. Species as a term is a very hard thing to pinpoint. Everyone has their opinions on what should be considered a species. I know there are some more popular requirements to be called a species, but as a whole it's a very in-the-dark term. The biblical term of kinds would probably be most related to the taxonomic term of genus and in some cases family.

Thanks, friend. You're alright... ;)

Really though, the sheer arrogance of many creationists is just a huge thorn in our (creationists) side. Worse, though, is the faulty logic so often employed by creationist apologists. As a seeker and lover of truth, it is of utmost importance to me that I discern between sound and unsound logic, and it is just as important to me that I call my brothers or sisters out when they have fallen victim to erroneous reasoning. Too often though, I am met with accusations that I am not a creationist, or worse, not a Christian. But I will continue doing what God has called me to do.

This is just something you have to live with I guess. Not everyone is perfect and if anything they are practicing here so when they do argue this with a non-christian, they can show God's love through their reasoning. Every side has it though. The evolution side has revolting arrogance and downright name calling(I am thinking of PZ Meyers blog when I say this), but I am sure the Creationist side has a couple of those too (Although this would be the absolute wrong thing to do of a Christian apologist)

A quick course on mutations:

Mutations occur in four different manners. Substitution, Deletion, Insertion and Frameshift. To give an example of each I am going to use the sentence "Hello, my name is John."

Substitution
Heoll, my eamn is Jonh. The codons, or in this case letters, are just switched around with each other

Deletion
Hllo, m nme is Joh. Letters are just deleted. Of course it can get a whole lot more complicated and more letters, even words may be deleted.

Insertion
Heollo muy naame izs Jzohn. Base pairs, or letters, are added into the sequence.

Frameshift
Ellom yn amei sj ohn. Frameshift deletes a codon and moves everything over. The "H" was deleted, so everything was moved to the left to fill up each words space.

So as you can see only existing code can be manipulated to even have a mutation.


Looking at your analogy I still see new information. True no new letters were created but new words or letter groups were created. Isn't that what a DNA/RNA helix is? TACG/UGCA. Different ordering of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine or Uracil in RNA. Plus after the the nucleic chain has been formed adenine can be modified into hypoxanthine and guanine into xanthine. I know I getting into the weeds here but just as new words can be created with the same 26 letters of the English alphabet so can new information be created with the differenting ordering of nucleobases.

God bless

"Jesus was answering the Pharisees who were asking Jesus about marriage and divorce. Knowing that the Pharisees were sticklers for every letter and word of the Torah (cough cough),"

Need a coughdrop?

The pharisees were correct about the literal history of the O.T. They were wrong in their application of the teachings as Jesus attempted to show them. But in this regard they were closer to scripture than you are. It was the saducees who denied the literal teachings of the O.T. So which group are you closer to?

P.S. still waiting for Old Earther to answer my question above which was highlighted in red.

I am not sure what history book you are reading. The main difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was the Sadduccess rejecting concept of a Oral Torah. The Oral Torah became the Talmud (Mishnah/Gemara) in written form later.

Looking at your analogy I still see new information.

But you missed the whole point. In order for beneficial mutations to even occur, they need to have something to jumble up first.

But you missed the whole point. In order for beneficial mutations to even occur, they need to have something to jumble up first.

This is where our beliefs merge. I believe God provided the something (DNA/RNA) to jumble up.

This is where our beliefs merge. I believe God provided the something (DNA/RNA) to jumble up.

And this is the problem I have with TE. Why would God give everything needed to start life, but then step out of the picture. All the while he created everything else in the world, fully formed (to the point he intended it to be at it's creation) yet he had to use indirect process to create man which miraculously was created in his image (I know, I know, he guided every little mutation along the way. Sounds almost like he just created every creature how they should be) To be honest, it's a ridiculous view.

And this is the problem I have with TE. Why would God give everything needed to start life, but then step out of the picture. All the while he created everything else in the world, fully formed (to the point he intended it to be at it's creation) yet he had to use indirect process to create man which miraculously was created in his image (I know, I know, he guided every little mutation along the way. Sounds almost like he just created every creature how they should be) To be honest, it's a ridiculous view.

It's also not the typical TE view.

* we don't claim he stepped out of the picture.
* we don't claim he guided each and every mutation - only that he knew the direction they were going to take.
* we don't claim he *had* to use an indirect process.

I would object to the claim that a natural process is any less direct from God's perspective than immediate creation. Since God is not bounded by time, neither the length nor complexity of the process is an issue for Him.

Scripture even advocates our position. "let the land produce..." is a statement that implies a more indirect approach, yet it still is doing the will of God. Does this imply that God stepped away after the first ex nihilo creation and took a smaller role? I don't think so.

p.s. I'm sure some TE's might uphold one or the other of your claims, but that's because TE is hardly a codified theology like YEC (there are probably more variations within TE than there are between YEC/OEC/gap theorists).

More on living fossils compared with their ancestors revealing that no evolution has taken place. This is empirical investigation...that is direct observation of the existing evidence; something evolutionists cannot provide.

http://www.living-fossils.com/images/index_r1_c1.jpg

http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/42.jpg

A bat dated at 50 million yrs old. the x-ray of the fossil reveals no change whatever. AND...there are NO transitional forms in the fossil record leading up to this species!

http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/41.jpg

Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural history holding up more examples of fossils of organisms which show no change. He said, quote: "... there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ... We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils."

The evolutionist magazine New Scientist described evolutionist contradictions in the face of living fossils:

Some biologists marvel that there is any evolution at all, considering the possible pitfalls of change. "The idea is that organisms are so complex that it is very hard to change one aspect without wrecking everything else," says [Yale paleontologist Elisabeth] Vrba. But it is extremely difficult to show that this is why our supreme survivors remain unchanged for millions of years.36 (http://www.living-fossils.com/4_1.php#dipnot)



http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/44.jpghttp://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/45.jpg
This 50 million-year-old fish was fossilized in the process of swallowing another fish, discovered in the Green River region of Wyoming, USA.



This 50-million-year-old fossil fish, Genus priscacara, dating back to the Eocene epoch, was also discovered at Green River in Wyoming, where some of the world’s best-known fossil discoveries have been made. As with this fish, other fossils discovered in this region have preserved a large portion of their soft tissues.


A fish fossilized while in the act of swallowing another fish? Talk about sudden destruction? There are many such examples. I don't know about you readers but every time I come across such examples I think of the destruction that come on the world during the time of the great flood of Noah.

http://www.living-fossils.com/living_fossils_1_1.php

http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/59.jpg





http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/60.jpghttp://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/61.jpg
(1)A butterfly (Lepidoptera) with a wingspan greater than 5 centimeters from the lower Cretaceous (approximately 125 million years ago).


(2)An 18-millimeter plant-dwelling insect from the lower Cretaceous (approximately 125 million years ago).

(3)A 16-millimeter stonefly from the lower Cretaceous (approximately 125 million years ago).

(4)This example is a member of the Orpthoptera (which comprises grasshoppers and their kin) from the family Haglidae, reminiscent of present-day katydids, from Hebei, China. The details of this very large specimen have been very well preserved, including a color scale dating back 125 million years. As can be seen from the 27-millimeter ovipositor it used to bury its eggs in the soil, this is a female that shares exactly the same anatomical features as today’s katydids.

http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/62.jpg
So where is the evolutionary change? This fossil katydid has no predecessors in the fossil record.

And this directly from Cornell University:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May03/ant1.72.jpg (http://www.news.cornell.edu/photos/ant1.300.jpg)ITHACA, N.Y. -- Army ants, nature's ultimate coalition task force, strike their prey en masse in a blind, voracious column and pay no attention to the conventional wisdom of evolutionary biologists.
The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was one evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same ancestor, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May03/ArmyAntBrady.bpf.html

Compare now a mooneye fish fossil with its living descendant:


http://api.fmanager.net/files/fossils/SF0016_fossil_mooneye.jpg (javascript:openwindow('fosilresim.php?Id=50'))

http://api.fmanager.net/files/fossils/alive/SF_mooneye_hiodon_7.jpg


They are anatomically the same.


http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/248.jpg

A dragon fly fossil dated at 150 million yrs reveals no change when compared to its living descendant. Take a look for yourself at

http://www.living-fossils.com/living_fossils_1_2.php

There is so much of this kind of evidence that I can literally go on for days posting it.

Evolutionists are commonly making mistakes about living organisms and their existence, age, and ancestral relationships. Here are some:


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/images/2008/12/05/jurassicshrimp.jpg (http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/05/jurassicshrimp.jpg)

Until a preserved specimen was found in the Smithsonian in 1975, the 10-footed, lobster-like Jurassic shrimp was thought to have gone extinct 50 million years ago. Living Jurassic shrimp have since been found (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1808557.htm).

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/images/2008/12/05/croc.jpg (http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/05/croc.jpg)
The most widespread of all living fossils, crocodiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile) have barely changed in the 230 million years since dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/whats-old-is-ne.html

The words of an evolutionist. How disappointing it must be to them to see one organism after another with no change as confirmed by the fossils of dead creatures whose living offspring bear no evolutionary change.

http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/30.jpg
The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith and the living Cœlacanth found in the Comoro Islands. This first specimen showed that the Cœlacanth was a fully-fledged fish, not an intermediate form as claimed by evolutionists.

http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php (http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php)

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/images/2008/12/05/mantisshrimp_2.jpg (http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/05/mantisshrimp_2.jpg)
Neither a mantis nor a shrimp, the mantis shrimp (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/all-hail-the-ma.html) has changed little in 400 million years. It has the world's most complex eyes, and its prey-killing claw motion is the second-fastest animal motion. To quote mantis shrimp eye researcher Tom Cronin, "Whenever they get into any type of situation, they smash things. You can't pick these up. They're really great animals to have around."

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/whats-old-is-ne.html (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/whats-old-is-ne.html)

Is it 'little' or none? We say 'none'. Every organism on earth, regardless as to kind, will reproduce only within the genetic limitations that God instilled as recorded in Genesis one.

An Australian lungfish from the Devonian period (408-360 million years ago). Evolutionists claim that lungfish are the ancestors of amphibians. Yet the pulmonary structure in these fish bears no resemblance to that in terrestrial animals.
http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/40.jpg



http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/34.jpg



Horseshoe crab. Dated by evolutionists at 450-million-year-old horseshoe crab is no different to specimens alive today. Has it possessed the same complex features and equipment for the last half billion years or so?


http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/39.jpg



A fossil ginkgo tree leaf dating back 125 million years, and a present-day example.




We have looked at hundreds of example of living fossils of mostly the common kind that would be recognized by even grade school children and yet there is little or no evolutionary change in any organisms.

Coelacanth...supposed to have been extinct for 80 million yrs.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/images/2007/07/18/coelacanth_3.jpg (http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/18/coelacanth_3.jpg)
Last Saturday, fishermen caught a coelacanth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth) off the shores of Zanzibar.
When the story first hit the wires, I decided against posting: coelacanth catches are infrequent but not profoundly rare. But over the last few days, that decision has been eating at me.
In a world of amazing creatures, coelacanths are among the most exceptional. They belong to a family of fish that flourished from the Devonian and Cretaceous eras, spanning the migration of life from the oceans to land; in fact, they move their oddly projecting fins in an alternating pattern, and some suspect that the fins represent an intermediate stage of leg.
Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record 80 million years ago, and scientists figured they'd gone extinct. Then, in 1938, a few days before Christmas, a messenger arrived at the office of Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, the young curator of South Africa's East London Museum, asking if she wanted to buy a strange, foul-smelling creature that local fishermen had hauled back to the docks that day.

One thing led to another, and soon it was clear that a remnant population of coelacanth had survived in the deepest reaches of the Indian Ocean archipelago, nearly unchanged since their ancestors swam with dinosaurs.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/unchanged-for-8.html#previouspost


http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/98.jpg


This fossil fish, known as a needlefish because of its shape, was found in the Ramlia Taouz region of Morocco. At 127 million years of age, it dates back to the Cretaceous period, and is identical to needlefish of today.


http://www.living-fossils.com/images_fossils/93.jpg


A fossil shrimp frequently encountered in Jurassic marine strata. This fossil is dated between 200 and 140 million years old, and is no different from present-day shrimps.


These comparisons deal a devastating blow to evolution. Direct observational evidence is one of the best ways to establish the truth about the past.

"What faulty logic? You mean the logic that Moses gave us a good idea about the age of the earth by writing the chronologies in Genesis 5 and that the family lineage of Jesus Christ as listed in Luke 3 is legitimate and that the history of mankind is approximately 6,000 to 7,000 yrs old...instead of the atheist/evolutionist position that it is millions of yrs old?"

I urge the readers to wait to see if he answers this vital question. I looked for an answer to this but did not see one.

This "vital question" has nothing whatsoever to do with what you and I were discussing. The "faulty logic" in question, as I already made clear, concerns your silly living fossil argument. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, Yankee, then you would do well to quit playing dense and actually address the pertinent points that I have raised. I somehow suspect, though, that you won't do so.

This is most entertaining to see Yankee reference to living fossils as proof against evolution, when he hasn't even put forth an argument for why living fossils debunk evolution. :lol:

This "vital question" has nothing whatsoever to do with what you and I were discussing. The "faulty logic" in question, as I already made clear, concerns your silly living fossil argument. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, Yankee, then you would do well to quit playing dense and actually address the pertinent points that I have raised. I somehow suspect, though, that you won't do so.

There is nothing silly about it. The living fossils are devastating to evolution in the minds of anyone with a perceptive mind and an honest heart towards the Lord and His inspired record as to how the world was created.

It is clear you are dodging this matter and that you won't deal with the most important questions. But for the other readers I will state it once more and ask the logical question plainly:

"You mean the logic that Moses gave us a good idea about the age of the earth by writing the chronologies in Genesis 5 and that the family lineage of Jesus Christ as listed in Luke 3 is legitimate and that the history of mankind is approximately 6,000 to 7,000 yrs old...instead of the atheist/evolutionist position that it is millions of yrs old?"

Now please tell the readers if you believe that the chronologies that Moses gave us in Genesis 5 is legitimate and accurate or if you think God's Word has errors in that chapter. Tell the readers if you believe that the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ according to Luke 3 is legitimate. Do all those names listed by the apostle go back to Adam and was he a real person? If Adam wasn't the first man then who was?

We await your answer.

This is most entertaining to see Yankee reference to living fossils as proof against evolution, when he hasn't even put forth an argument for why living fossils debunk evolution. :lol:

Oh, it takes such a great 'genius' to figure this out. Sorry that 'Old Earther' can't grasp it.

Alright, attitudes are getting out of control... Closing.