This will have to be my last post on the subject. I just flunked a physics exam and my maths final is in a week and a half, so I no longer have time to do research.
Im sorry for my miscalculation, my memory is not perfect. So there are 25 sites, however, you cannot claim these are complete for the following reasons:
- They do not expanse the entire evolution of life.
- None of them contain missing links (and when scientists claim they do it ends up being an unfounded hysteria that misinterpreted the real fossil).
- The dispersement of fossils more often than not does not coincide with the evolutionary chain. This is especially evident in the finding of human articles in all levels of strata and the dispersement of shellfish in almost every area and strata in the world (evidence of the flood btw).
- They do not expanse the entire evolution of life.
If you are looking for fossil specimens of each and every single minute stage of development from nothing up, don't bother. It's impossible. The conditions required for fossilisation means fossil lineages will most likely never be completed to a stage creationists will be satisified. And to meet your requirment, fossils would have to be buried under every square inch of earth, of every single type of specimen that ever existed. Your claim is baseless.
- None of them contain missing links (and when scientists claim they do it ends up being an unfounded hysteria that misinterpreted the real fossil).
What relevance has a 'missing link' have to a complete column? You might also want to define 'missing link'.
As far as I know, everytime a new fossil come to light that may be a transitional fossil, creationists quickly say "Where is the transitional fossil between them?" A new gap pops up between them. In this way it is impossible to meet creationist criterion.
I would also like to know the last time a 'missing link' was hyped to the point of hysteria.
- The dispersement of fossils more often than not does not coincide with the evolutionary chain. This is especially evident in the finding of human articles in all levels of strata and the dispersement of shellfish in almost every area and strata in the world (evidence of the flood btw).
You mean like a fishing reel and a
spark plug? Please.
1. Plate techtonics during the time of the "fountains of the deep" would have obviously been an entirely different story. Your argument is based on the assumption that plate techtonics (A) are a 100% proven science, which they are not. They are only a theory. (B) That plate techtonics have always existed and worked in the same manner (uniformitarianism).
1. Plate techtonics during the time of the "fountains of the deep" would have obviously been an entirely different story
Why? Because it helps your case?
(A) are a 100% proven science, which they are not. They are only a theory.
So is gravity. You'll also be hard pressed to find any science, with the possible exception of maths which is 100% proven.
A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
Some things which show plate tectonics is reliable:
1) Plate motions are measured directly.
2) The eastern edge of the continental shelves of North and South America fit closely (within 50 km) with the western continental shelves of Africa and Europe. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge has the same shape.
3) Plant and animal fossil distributions, geological formations, and indications of ancient climate match up in Africa and South America as if the continents once fit together.
4) When new rocks are formed, they record the earth's current magnetic field, which reverses occasionally. The magnetic field pattern recorded in the sea floor rocks shows bands mirrored across a spreading center.
5) Paleomagnetic studies show different polar wandering on different continents, indicating that the continents moved relative to one another.
6) Maps of earthquake locations show plate boundaries and the paths of subducting plates.
7) Hot spots leave trails such as volcanic island chains as the plates move over them.
I might also ask what exactly causes earthquakes and volcanoes? Plate tectonics seems to explain this quite well. Unless you can come up with a totally new theory which explains this AND fits your 'fountains of the deep' stuff, then it seems the only complaint you have against it is how it makes mincemeat of the fountains of the deep nonsense.
(B) That plate techtonics have always existed and worked in the same manner (uniformitarianism).
Since we have no (legitimate) reason to believe it changed significantly, since plate tectonics also makes sense when considered millions of years back, this is pretty pointless. And your argument is out of date by about 100 years. Nowadays, Lyells updated Uniformitarianist view is known as Actualism, which takes into account small-scale catastrophies. Creationism doesn't. The scale of events may change, but the physical laws operating today are key to the past.
Have you ever had a coconut? Science proves that coconut shells do not float in milk. However, milk stays inside the shells because the shell is complete (and the lack of significant gravitational pull ). Same idea with the fountains. They were perhaps sustained by magnetic forces, or by equalateral hydrolic forces (distributing the pressure evenly, like a large scale snow shoe).
Ironic you use gravity, a
theory as an example, when you chided me for using one.
I can only presume you are making the assumption that the crust of the earth was some kind of hermetic seal that kept the water in? Either way, it makes no difference since it is an assumption only.
Also, the superheated water would not be a problem. The extra force would hold the crust up. However you are still assuming that the core of the earth has always been hot. It could in fact have become heated by the cataclisms of the flood.
You really have to be joking me here. How on earth would the earth's mantle and core, reaching approx. 2900 and 5200 km deep respectively, reaching temperatures of around 1000 degrees celcius under the crust and 4300 degrees celcius near the inner core, to be created by escaping water? Are you suggesting countless billion tonnes of rock were melted (yes, melted) into molten rock and minerals by escaping water?
And if the force of the water happened to be hot enough to heat the centre of the earth (!!), don't you just think it might also be hot when it got into the air? Do you know that water cannot exceed 100 degrees celcius before it evaporates? Just how could water create the heat necessary?
To put aside water, even assuming only rock friction or some such wouldn't possibly be able to account for the earths core being molten rock.
And earthquakes and volcanoes and other geological anomalies couldn't have happened unless there were plates with liquid rock beneath them.
Grasping at straws doesn't quite do justice to this.
2. The evidence is all over... for one, the erosion of the ridges would not have fromed sediment banks. The extreme pressure from the water would have caused the sediments to travel miles high and spread out all over. Not to mention the tumultuous shiftings of the flood waters which would have spread sediments all over. The evidence is the fossil record. The sedements are evenly distributed according to the laws of hydrolic organization. The layers of coal, formed by dead vegetation and animals, are in multi-strata layers suggesting a quick laying of strata, not millions of years. Trees have been found straight up through "millions of years" of strata. Shellfish and other aquatic life are evenly distributed from mount everest to the dead sea. Its all there, the geologic column is evidence of a worldwide flood.
The layers of coal, formed by dead vegetation and animals, are in multi-strata layers suggesting a quick laying of strata, not millions of years
It is impossible to interpret these deposits as formed by a single event of short duration. The plants that form coal take time to grow, coal takes time to accumulate and decay, and trees take many years to grow. There are multiple coal seams and multiple tree and footprint horizons, and this is only in one short interval of the geologic record in one area. There are many other areas of similar coal deposits (e.g., Nova Scotia). Rather than being a problem for conventional geology, coal is explained quite easily by analogy to modern peat environments. Coal deposits and associated sediments are an immense problem for any interpretation involving a "global flood".
Trees have been found straight up through "millions of years" of strata
Meh, this one was solved a hundred years ago, more or less. The trees go through
metres which does not equate to millions of years. Your argument was out of date when a 19th century creationist geologist, Dawson, used 19th century geology methods. Ooops.
I would ask how your scientists came up with such a preposterous date for their mitochrondrial parents. The fact is, they don't know when they existed, they are simply assuming that their observations and calculations of genetic distribution are correct. The fact is, all humans on earth came from two people. In evolution this makes no sense. The pigmies of africa would have come from a totally different line than the germanics and the native americans. How in the world can evolution justify a "mother of all" that is anything more than a bacterium which sporadically formed from primordial soup.
Mitochondrial DNA changes at a relatively stable pace, so by looking at the changes between different groups of people, they can calculate when they diverged. The date for the female line is somewhere between 160,000 and 200,000 years ago. They also evaluate the Y-chromosome mutations as well, and that produces a vastly different time. The easiest answer is that the results have been tested and verified in numerous ways, while your belief has not. In fact, all evidence points that the "fact" of two people giving birth to billions is a lie. The mitochondrial evidence doesn't really postulate one individual either, since it only shows the that the mDNA of one individual were passed on over time more successfully than others. However, if a woman were to have only sons, her mRNA were not passed on, but her genes were. So, in effect, for the mDNA test, she "doesn't exist".
You also want us to believe that in the span of 1,000 years or so, people evolved (!) at hyperspeed into the many races we have today (remember that they were all destroyed along with the animals in the flood, so we're really descended from a doubly incestous bunch - and this was all God's plan!).
Assuming you will even bother, look
here for a more detailed explanation about mtdEve.
In evolution this makes no sense. The pigmies of africa would have come from a totally different line than the germanics and the native americans
Your laughter might diminish if you realize you just shot yourself in the foot. If "pigmies" and "germanics" had to have come from a totally different line, what does that say about everyone coming from two people in far less than the 6,000 years commonly ascribed to by creationists? Evolution says nothing about "different lines" of humanity - indeed, it postulates that humans are descended from one line (albeit in a branching pathway not a straight line). I think you're implying that the different races of humanity had to have evolved from different ancestors, rather than having one common one that evolved into the different groups. It's possible if we hadn't developed technology but remained primative that the different races might have evolved into different species, but that is very hypothetical (and would have taken millions of years in any case).
Again you assume that your interpratation of the amount of time it takes for processes to complete is correct. Which scientists have been around for 300,000 years to know that tissue can survive that long. The truth is, the tissue we find is proof that all fossils are young, not that tissue survives long. Tissue breaks down quick when not preserved carefully, so we sould expect that few fossils should have tissue. Since uniformitarianism suggests that animals were slowly covered, tissue should not be found on any fossils.
Scientists don't have to be around for 300,000 years, what an absurd statement. Throwing up strawmen like this isn't helpful. Tissues CAN survive long, since in fossilised conditions, tissues would not be exposed to air, bacterium and other elements which would destroy it. You are making statements that are laughably contrary to the sciences in which they are relevant.
And no, since preserved peat bodies around 4000 years old have been discovered with considerable organic tissue still intact, I think fossils that are only 6500 years or less would have considerably more tissue in every find. They do not.
In order for the dinosaurs to evolve into birds, other reptiles, mammals, etc. the enviroment would have had to become unsustainable or else the processes of natural seletion would not have come into play and the only boys prancing around these days would be dinosaurs. Evolution (especially the most widely accepted theory of puntual equalibrium) has species coming in shifts ands stages, one world changing into a new world. To say we have the old world hanging around is to say that the old world never changed into the new.
No, the environment does not necessarily have to change. Species change according to mutations which better enable them to survive in their current habitat. This means two species living in the same environment can change independantly of each other, and one might not change much at all. Oh, and punctuated equilibrium is an off-shoot of (what might be called) Darwinian evolution, used to explain certain anomalies, such as gaps in the fossil record. It isn't widely accepted in the sense that it is an alternative to evolution, but as a complement, along with phyletic gradualism. It still implies evolutionary changes on the scale of Darwinian evolution. Ooops.
The life and death and ressurection of Jesus are more verified than any scientific theory to date. The existence of our own mothers should be questioned over His life. You dont have to believe them, they are fact.
Talk to the hand.
Vestigal organs are a joke. You can live without your ear, that doesnt mean its useless. The list of vestigal organs is steadily decreasing. It used to contain 80 organs back in the early 1900's and now only contains a few (Im not sure which). The function of these organs are quickly being discovered anyway. (
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html) (
http://www2.gvsu.edu/~king01/so-cal...al organs.htm)
This argument is a joke because you blatantly have no idea what 'vestigial' means.
Vestigial != useless. Vestigial means it no longer performs the function which it originally did. You can live without your ear, but it still performs its function, so itsn't vestigial.
Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish , extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function. They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
The second link didn't work for some reason, but the darwinism refuted was laughable. It devoted an entire page to showing how vestigial organs weren't useless when that wasn't the argument at all.
Junk DNA is preposterous aswell. How about I give you a spanish dictionary and you go through it and try to determine the purpose of every line, letter, and word. Surely you won't be able to do it, and therefore you might claim some words or lines as "junk" or "fill." The truth is your little english brain cant comprehend the language enough to decipher it all. Even more are we humans ignorant of the language of life, the super-complex blueprints called DNA.
What kind of analogy is the spanish dictionary??
Hogwash. Perhaps you might tell us what’s going on in the fruitfly Drosophila’s genome: 40% of it is taken up with three little, seven-‘letter’ repeats. These seven letter bits are meaningless -- they would not code for anything even if they were transcribed. And they are repeated 3.6, 3.6, and eleven million times. Also explain how humans and chimpanzees both have broken vitamin-c synthesising genes in exactly the same places. The same genes broken, the same problem.
Someone's little English brain hasn’t encountered much genetics before.
The discussion of starlight travel is to broad for a simple post. I hold to the theories of Dr. Russel Humphry on "white holes" etc. Light can get here faster than you think. I did not contradict myself. I said there are not enough 3rd stage novas, and there aren't for there are none. Also you assume that the old novas took as long as you say to form. The truth is we dont know how long it takes, how many scientists have watched a super-nova disperse for 22,000 years? They could form much faster than we assume. Also, stellar evolution predicts hundreds of thousands of these ancient novas. If they do find one or two it is no proof because we dont know what forces affected the speed of the spread of the novas.
Light can get here faster than you think
During the Setterfield Experiment, Setterfield chose 120 data points of the speed of light from 193 measurements available, and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data. So your statement is hardly authorative. You might also be interested to know some creationists assert that the speed of light hasn't changed. Who's word do I take? A Biblical Literalist, or a Biblical Literalist? Oops.
I said there are not enough 3rd stage novas, and there aren't for there are none.
Why am I reminded of Monty Python?
"You're arm's off!"
"No it isn't!"
Why don't you ask NASA? I'm sure experts in the field will clear that up.
Also you assume that the old novas took as long as you say to form. The truth is we dont know how long it takes, how many scientists have watched a super-nova disperse for 22,000 years?
More of this "were you there?" foolishness. We can make accurate estimates based on gas dispersion. You have some really bizarre views on what science is.
Ha! Evolution only conforms to atheism. The big bang is far more preposterous and unscientific than the creation account: "Dirt created itself and all the matter in the universe was super-condenced. Suddenly it exploded and the density became much less. Out of the matter formed atoms and then molecules and then the gasses which became stars and then asteroids and then planets etc." This is pure speculation. Please explain any way that this is testable, provable science? On the other hand, millions of prayers of saints and miracles have confirmed the validity of the Bible and the existence of God. Evolution is the imaginative, unbased theory, not creation.
An argument from ignorance does not your case make. You'll excuse me if I take the findings of astronomers and mathematicians over your opinions. As for the strawman about the big bang, whatever. Thats abiogenesis, as I've already made clear several times. You might also want to explain how a creationist Christian came up with evolution by observing phenomena, rather than simply taking the word of a book written before any modern science techniques were invented.
On the other hand, millions of prayers of saints and miracles have confirmed the validity of the Bible and the existence of God.
Name a scientifically verified miracle. Name the scientists who observed it and how it was confirmed to be a miracle. Also name the control methods used to ensure it was not caused by outside methods.
Whenever have you seen monitor lizards hunting kangaroos? Anyway, I never said they jumped off the ark! The ark rested for a good half year in the mountains of arrarat while vegetation resettled. Also, the ice caps in the north and south would have then contained a lot more of the earth water supply (that is all explained in AiG about the ice ages and the flood), which would have meant that landbridges between england and europe, australia and indonesia, asia and north america, would have been more prolific. They walked there! Its a perfectly reasonable explaination. Natural selection is not foreign concept to creationism... kangaroos just couldn't survive anywhere else.
Whenever have you seen monitor lizards hunting kangaroos?
Strawman. I never said monitor lizards hunt kangaroos. Do you honestly think they are the only animal that get hunted there? Monitor lizards are a natural predator. As are crocs and venomous snakes and scorpions. You said there were none.
I never said they jumped off the ark! The ark rested for a good half year in the mountains of arrarat while vegetation resettled
And I suppose the animals swam then? What was I to make of your statement, "Notice how there are no natural predators in Australia... coincedence? or were these animals pushed onto their Islands?"
Yup, I can picture a koala bear walking a few hundred miles to Australia too. Or a sloth. Or how about Pandas, who need a specific diet of eucalyptus leaves? Now there is a sight to see.
These refutations are unbased. There is no proof whatsoever that carnivorous animals were always carnivorous. If you look at the fossils of a dead black bear you cant tell what is ate mostly unless you examine its feces (which have obviously long deteriorated). "Predating" the flood assumes that your dating methods are correct, which they are not (see theories on c-14 and potassium argon dating in AiG, CSE, etc.). Also, you please explain all the sites where the carnivores are out of their evolutionary arrangement, not to mention the lack of missing links (unless you believe in puntual equalibrium).
[/URL][/IMG]
Did I say they were always carnivourous? Nope. You said that all carnivores were omnivores and suddenly "evolved" (in a way which doesn't
actually evolve, but evolve so it is convenient for creationism) to become carnivores in the space of less than a few thousand years. The physical differences between omnivores and carnivores, dental, digestive, meatabolic systems etc, are changes on a scale creationists say is only possible to macroevolution (which they also falsely say has not been observed, interestingly enough. Isn't cognitive dissonance fun?), especially on such a minute time scale. Mega ooops.
If you look at the fossils of a dead black bear you cant tell what is ate mostly unless you examine its feces (which have obviously long deteriorated).
You don't know anything about paleontology do you?
Don't you know the differences between carnivore and omnivore physiology? The dental structure is one thing. One does not evaluate one's feeding habits only by examining one's poo.
"Predating" the flood assumes that your dating methods are correct, which they are not (see theories on c-14 and potassium argon dating in AiG, CSE, etc.)
C-14 has been proven to be accurate, as it has been repeatedly used on historical items such as wood from an egyptian tomb and parts of the dead sea scrolls, which can be cross-verified with other methods, such as historical tracing using records and documents. It has also been verified by dating multiple samples from a single object, which gives consistent results.
Creationists frequently misuse c-14 by trying to date items much more than 50,000 years old, after which c-14 rapidly loses accuracy. Incompetence on the part of creationists is not an excuse to dismiss a verified dating method.
Also, you please explain all the sites where the carnivores are out of their evolutionary arrangement, not to mention the lack of missing links (unless you believe in puntual equalibrium).
I would have to ask where the carnivores are out of place specifically, so I can look it up, but since I can't continue beyond this post, that would be pointless. But feel free to provide it anyway. And missing links are reffering to transitional fossils and transitional fossils have been found. Whenever one has been found, creationists explain it away by saying where is the transitional fossil before and after this one.
What I was getting at was: The gene pool would have begun with a vegetarian cat in the garden of eden. God in His divine forbearance of a fallen world would have implanted carnivorous genes that would have eventually overtaken other genes, forming omnivors first, then carnivors second. This is a thining out of the genepool.
So it all comes to invoking miracles, which is about a scientific as astrology.
(c) Eternal omnipotent creator, creation of universe.
(Dt) Universe began; matter degrades; life highly organised.
Non Sequitur.
1. none of these are the exclusive predictions of special creation.
Background radiation only shows that the universe as we know it, at some point, began.
What preceded the singularity is unknown, but modern physics is beginning to peel away that shroud… and what do they say they see? The face of God? Not yet at least.
The data says nothing about an omnipotent creator being behind it. “Goddidit” is belief, not data.
2. Exactly where in the bible does it clearly state that matter degrades, put in terms beyond what is readily observed by any child? IOW, the tendency toward disorder is something that has been observed and commented upon for thousands of years by philosophers and mystics. Heck, religion, in part, could be understood as an early attempt to try and explain why things degrade and how they can be restored to a right balance. Science has given us an explanation for the age old observation of entropy that does not require the superstitions of religion.
3. Evolution provides an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life that requires fewer added variables (parsimony) and is entirely falsifiable.
#2
(c) Natural laws an character unchanging.
(Dt) Laws constant; matter constant; no new laws.
Not true. The physical laws of ‘today’ did not exist in the original singularity. Also, in the singularity of a black hole the physical laws of ‘today’ break down.
What do you mean by “matter is constant?”
(c) Trend towards degredation.
(Dt) 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
I quote:
me said:
It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease
So where does this say disorder? You're making this stuff up. And what part of Creationism predicts increasing disorder (even if the 2nd Law actually said that)? I was under the impression the 2nd Law was used as an attempt to disprove evolution. Here, you are just trying to re-tool a flawed argument to fit a different purpose.
(c) Creation of life, no spontaneous life.
(Dt) biochemical improbabilities of abiogenesis; refutation of spontaneous generation.
This is a re-worded version of the improbabilities of life forming without a divine spark, and how life can't come from nothing. A flawed Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis.
The improbabilities is already done earlier in the thread. I quote myself:
me said:
1 The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life
2 The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
3 The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4 The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
Spontaneous generation (Pasteur's Law) assumes a lifeform like a rat, maggot or bacterium. It doesn't say anything, nor does it disprove, primitive life forming from increasingly complex molecules. As above, organic molecules have been observed forming in space conditions.
(c) Life unique from matter.
(Dt) Life matter gap; biochemicals not formed naturally from non-life.
But we are composed on non-living elements. Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, none of these are alive. Yet they combine to make molecules which in turn can become living cells. You might say we
are matter.
(c) Life eternal.
(Dt) Law of Biogenesis.
More stuff you're making up. The Law of Biogenesis disproved lifeforms such as mice, maggots and bacterium forming spontaneously. No data exists to support “Life eternal.” Not even life in the physical universe will last forever, as far as we know.
(c)Basic categories (kinds) of life unrelated.
(Dt) Law of biogenesis; reversion to type (kinds); fossil gaps; heterogeneity; similarites.
In what way are the basic 'Categories' (whatever that means) in life unrelated?
Since you couldn't get the basic categories or "Kinds" right in the last argument, I'll be less accomodating this time. The Law of Biogenesis is just silly. You plainly didn't research that law yourself. Law of Biogenesis has about as much to do with 'Kinds' as a capacitor has to do with liver functions. So please do what you have still to do and define 'kinds'.
Gaps in fossils, I assume, you mean transistional fossils? There are plenty. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Heterogeneity, I don't understand. And similarities makes no sense since you are arguing that they are not similar or 'unrelated'. If I understand this correctly, you are arguing that similar designs mean same creator. So do different designs imply different creators? I thought we had already gone over this.
(c) World catastrophies.
(Dt) Fossils; sedimentary strata; frozen muck; present uniformity but evidence of past catastrophy.
Oh yes, past catastrophes…
Does the bible talk about the Mt. Everest sized asteroid that hit the Yucatan 65 million years ago?
How about the 4+ ice ages, the last one ending about 10,000 years ago?
Curious how human, trilobite and dinosaur fossils aren't found in the same layers. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited out of order.
2 points;
1. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place around 4500 years ago, (+-) a few centuries, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.
2. We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law . Furthermore, how could floodwaters have deposited layers of heavier sediments on top of layers of lighter sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.
Huh??
present uniformity but evidence of past catastrophy
You're not making yourself very clear.
(c) Organs always complete.
(Dt) Organs always fully developed; natural selection culls.
Oooops. Explain eyes in blind cave fish or certain bats. Not much Intelligence in that design, giving them organs they don't require. And this isn't a prediction, by the way.
"Fully developed" is not even well defined. Human eyes do not have the acuity of hawks, the dark sight ability of owls, the color discrimination of some fish, or the bee's ability to see in ultraviolet. With so much more potential possible for the human eye, how can one claim that our own eyes are fully developed?
(c) Mutations harmful.
(Dt) mutations vitiate; laws of information science.
Dude, seriously, read up on genetics before you make statements like this. Heck, read up on AiG. Even they say you shouldn't use this. This isn't even a prediction made by creationism, it's yet another attempt to launch a dig at evolution.
You'll find most mutations are neutral. Scientists Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans. Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon
Bacterial mutations have inferred a resistance to antibiotics in some cases
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS or to heart disease.
(c) Civilization, language, literature, art, etc. sudden.
(Dt) Archaeology and anthropology show civilization sudden.
One of the funny parts that you claim is based on some rather faulty reasoning. Since you mention language and literature, you are only referring to written records. Surely you are aware of the wealth of oral material found in some pre-literate (and post-literate) cultures - the indigenous people in New Guinea, Australia, and Africa, to name a few general regions. Babylonian myths from 3,000 BCE are presumed to be based on oral tradition from further back, and we do have some findings of civilization prior to that, although there are apparently no formal records.
We also have numerous artifacts from the past (cave paintings, stone tools, remains of fires, bones with tool markings, etc) - all these are indications that "civilization" as we know it has developed gradually over time. Once agriculture began to be practiced more, and writing developed (as well as other factors too numerous to mention here), civilization did develop rather fast. However, there is nothing "sudden" about it, except in geologic terms (which I am sure you do not believe in). So far you're 0 for 2 in biology, 0 for 4 in anthropology and forgot physics and geology.
(c) Man physical being, yet unique.
(Dt) Man / animal similarities; gaps: art, language, religion.
Similarities/gaps. What gaps, besides our intelligence? Animals feel pain and can have emotions (Dolphins are said to be the next most intelligent animal next to humans, perhaps on par with humans). And humans share genetic material with other animals and have the same genes in the same places governing the same things.
Art and language are indications of creativity which is an evolutionary advantage, since it suggests ability to adapt/innovate etc. And religion is more of a social development than anything else. Either way, this isn't much of a prediction.
(c) Design manifest.
(Dt) Life complex, highly ordered; natural synthesis.
Life complex, highly ordered
Creationism doesn't predict this. Life started, according to Genesis, as highly ordered and complex. So it isn't a prediction.
I assume you mean life begets life? This isn't even a prediction. It's taking an obvious observation and attributing it to creationism.
*whew". That was a lot of stuff. I take my leave now. For what it's worth, it was an interesting debate. So I give you thanks.
![[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff](/forums/data/avatars/m/1/1206.jpg?1442680067){kind=avatar}
). Same idea with the fountains. They were perhaps sustained by magnetic forces, or by equalateral hydrolic forces (distributing the pressure evenly, like a large scale snow shoe).
