randman

One of you said:

"Not True, in addition to similarities,

1) they appear in the correct chronological order in the fossil record.

2) they appear in the correct geographic location in the fossil record.

3) they appear more like modern species than samples that are older and less like modern species than ones that are younger.

So we have four characteristics that place transitional ("intermediate") fossils. If they are the result of special creation, then the creator surely wanted them to look intermediate.

The creator made them look similar (yet different) and placed them in the right place at the right time"

Steven Stanley said evolutionists were guilty of circular reasoning for assuming what you posted above is evidence of evolution. Maybe you should ask yourself why.
To answer your question. Do we see these species evolving in the fossil record? Is there fossil documentation, or is it just because you can't imagine the Creator making things appear similar.
The best way to help you in your infantile intellect here is an analogy. I am an artist. My earlier works generally, but not always look more similar than my later works.
Does this mean the art evolves all by itself?

missus_gumby

Ah, now we see where randman is really coming from. How unexpected. Not.

randman

So come here and put up with days of name-calling, but if I play the same game, I am somehow wrong, eh?
Typical hypcritical BS, from you evolutionists. It's always the same. Lie, lie, and lie some more.
Why not explain what the quotes above actually mean since ya'll dispute the clear pbvious meaning of them.

Queen of Swords

Can the art reproduce itself? If not, there's no analogy.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Are you a christian? If so, have you read the part about "turning the other cheek"?

BLoggins02

Oh crap! No wonder! Do you mean the clear obvious meaning of them when all the surrounding text is removed and their is not hint as to the motivation of said quote? Well, in that case, you have explained the obvious meaning of them quite nicely.

End of thread. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

theyeti

There is hardly anything circular about showing that the available evidence is entirely consistent with evolution! If the above facts were not true, then evolution would be hard to defend. As it is, what we see is exactly what we should expect to see if evolution occured; it's therefore the best explanation for the facts. Actually, it's the only one that even makes any sense. Steven Stanly, whoever he is, doesn't know what circular reasoning is.

Quote:

To answer your question. Do we see these species evolving in the fossil record? Is there fossil documentation, or is it just because you can't imagine the Creator making things appear similar.

Are you serious? If evolution were true, do you really think you would see fossils changing right before your eyes? Or do you think you would see new species constantly arising that are structurally very similar to those that were there before? What you need to come to terms with is the fact that mere similarity is not the issue; you listed those facts above yourself. If a creator is making organisms "similar", he's doing it in a way that makes it look exactly like evolution occured. Oh, and the fossil record is hardly the only evidence for evolution.

Quote:

The best way to help you in your infantile intellect here is an analogy. I am an artist. My earlier works generally, but not always look more similar than my later works. Does this mean the art evolves all by itself?

This analogy has jack squat to do with living things. The only method that we know of for the genesis of living things is from other living things (with the exception of the first, but that's a separate issue). Inanimate objects can't reproduce themselves and have no common qualities with living things. Furthermore, it's the pattern of simliarity that's important here. It's the exact pattern that we would expect from evolution; no known human designs fit that pattern. If you want to adopt the ad hoc belief that a creator did it that way for no apparent reason, then fine. You can, of course, explain away absolutely any amount of evidence in any scientific field this way, and can therefore choose to reject even the most basic facts of physics if you want. But such a belief is not even remotely testable, and doesn't even come close to being considered respectable science. All that can be said about it is that it's not reasonable.

BTW, comments about "infantile intellects" do nothing more than show that you are rude and that you have a weak position. This thread was started for you to defend your claim about AiG's best arguments; you have thus far failed to identify one and defend it. If this pattern continues, your threads will be sent to the rants forum.

theyeti

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

Daggah

You know it, I know it...hell, even randman knows it, which is why he's been avoiding my posts on non-fossil evidence for evolution.

MrDarwin

What makes you think there was a single creator, and not several? All those phyla that poof into existence all at the same time at the beginning of the Cambrian, all with completely different body plans--surely this suggests that each was created by a completely different designer?

Hmmm, are you really suggesting that the creator(s) needed practice, and got better at making organisms as time went on? That he/she/it/they made mistakes early on that needed to be destroyed, or weren't worth keeping?

randman

"As it is, what we see is exactly what we should expect to see if evolution occured; it's therefore the best explanation for the facts. Actually, it's the only one that even makes any sense. Steven Stanly, whoever he is, doesn't know what circular reasoning is."

Steven Stanley, whoever he is???
LOL.
Look, the simple fact is all of this stuff is completely in agreement with creationist models too. Of course, it is unscientific to consider God due to living things only coming from other living things. ROTFLOL.
But it is OK in one instance, a pretty important one I might add, the beginning of all life and design of living beings and eco-systems from inanimate objects.
Never mind that God is a living Being, oh well, it doesn't matter does it as long as the evolution myth can be perpetuated.
If science rules out considering a Creator automatically as you state, then science should no be tackling problems that are beyond it's scope. First of all, as far as science, God is just another part of the universe. So the idea of God should not be ruled out just because we don't yet have instruments to measure and quantify God.
As far as rudeness, I will be rude here since that is how I was treated. I never came on to defend creationism in detail, and I am not a YEC, but I made the comment in passing and explained it, and did point to some of the better arguments it seemed to me.
I still think ya'll were taking a straw man approach, and I really don't care to back it up. If you think you were not, fine, go ahead, but is was pretty pathetic and juvenile if you ask me.
I also never said I was aware of their one best argument.
What I am aware of though is evolutionists pushing propoganda techniques on the public, and that, my friend, is wrong.