Quote:

Okey, explain why the evidence would support creation instead please, because that sounds to me like plain crap.




Let's take his finches for instance. He saw that there were 13 species that were all fairly similar, and said it looked like they had come from a similar acestor. His assumption was that this ancestor was more basic than all of these species. When in fact, what we know about genetics, speciation, etc could just as easily have led him to the conclusion that there was an original finch, from which the genetic data had diverged (without the creation of NEW characteristics) into 13 different species. For instance, finches with longer beaks survived better in one environment, finches with thicker beaks survived better in another, and finches with smaller bodies in on environment, etc. Much like dogs, these finches are just the result of one set of one kind splitting off into various other species.

Basically, instead of jumping to the conclusion that all varieties of finches came from a basic ancestor, he could just as well have assumed they come from a more complex (genetically) ancestor. And there would be no reason to assume he was wrong. In fact, if we took selective pressures off (and this has been shown to happen) the finches could interbreed between species (hybridize) and return closer to the genetic characteristics of a more generalized finch.

Just as an example.

Quote:

Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations.



Remixing existing DNA into the wrong spot, or copying DNA into the wrong spot is hardly what I would call a transition. I mean, technically I guess it is. But its not going to change a sheep into a banana.

Quote:

Come on, evidence shows otherwise, seeing the forms in transition is as easy as 1,2,3, but you just desperately ignore them because it offends your belief.




Can you seriously not respond with anything except questioning my motives.

Quote:

By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.




Yeah. It seems pretty much every species reserved in the fossil record is perfectly adapted and doesn't change. Stasis (unchanging) is the rule, not the exception. The fossil record shows animals popping up, without ancestor, not changing, and then disappearing after million of years with relatively little change.

Quote:

If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me,




Man, digging out the lies of evolution is like digging out weeds. If you don't hit the whole root, it keeps popping back up. I totally almost typed pooping instead of popping.

Anyway, those 'legs' are anchors for muscles and the genitals. They make reproduction possible. Doesn't sound like legs to me. Besides, they aren't attached to the 'axial' skeleton like you would expect legs to be. They 'float' below the spine.

Your theory doesn't make sense to me, because evolutionists can mislead people (or lie in some cases) and people will believe those lies for years and years.

Much like I believed a lie that eventually made me question evolution.

Quote:

You're evading the issue. You first told that there were no transitional fossils, then we show you transitional fossils, and now you're telling us that those fossils are not transitional because they are adapted to doing what they do.



Let me put it this way. Creatures never transition in real life. These creatures you cited don't have creatures that transition into them, or transition away from them. They just have fins that are different from most fish. Why can't I just assume that these creatures weren't created with these fins to begin with? There's just as much evidence that these animals haven't transitioned as there is that they have transitioned.

What takes it out of the range of fish, and into the range of some other kind of animal?

Coelacanth had unusual fins. Scientists original stated that it walked along the ocean floor. Then it turned out it just swam better with those kinds of fins. How is this any different?

The supposed transition here is between fins and arms. Your proof that fins turned into arms is an animal that has fins?





That's a killer whale's fin bone above the tiktaalik's. Why couldn't tiktaalik have evolved into whales, they look pretty close? If evolutionists were convinced that tiktaalik were the transition between fish and whales, this would have been 'undeniable proof' of the transition. In fact, the evidence is so open ended, that you can pretty much read any transition into it that looks relatively close.

The evidence is good enough to name a transition into several kinds of animals. So I say that means its not evidence that it lead to any of them. Again, if animals (even, and especially, according to the fossil record) do not change, why should I believe this one did?

There is no unbroken line of evolution in the fossil record, so what this comes down to once again is the argument that since some animals look alike, they must have evolved.

Whales have fins, why would fish eventually evolve into mammals which would then re-evolve fins again? Trying to add imaginary stories into animals and the fossil record is going to produce some inconstiencies or downright stupid ideas. Nature doesn't work the way evolution would like it to. You can read anything you want it to it, and the evidence is so open ended you'll eventually find 'undeniable proof'.

edit: My main point is we've heard all of this before. The clamoring by evolutionists to jump on the newest fossil. We've heard, "This animal has pre-legs before." But what'll happen is what always happens, they'll find a fossil they like better, and then so, "Ok, we admit now that it wasn't really a good example of a transition."

One other major point is that, like all other animals with lobe fins, this creature doesn't have the fins attached to the axial skeleton. It wouldn't be good for bearing weight, with the exception of (possibly) lifting the creature out of shallow water to gulp air.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/27/06 02:16.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."