Replies

OK, Vade, take offense, but my post was not directed at you particularly or even primarily. But since you brought it up, let me give you my short version:

Yes, there does appear to be a succession, somewhat loose perhaps. But succession has not been established scientifically; i.e. there has been no credible mechanism that is supported by the evidence. There have been lots of lies, lots of lies, perpetrated by the so-called scientists -- Haeckel and on and on. Mutation is a wholly destructive non-starter. "Chance" is a howler. No mechanism, Vade, just fruit flies that are bred in the lab into monsters but then revert quickly to the norm when subsequently left to their own devices, Galapagos bird beaks that enlarge with unusual dryness, then revert to the norm with a return to climate normality.

You post a link to Talk.Origins. That site is one big lie. I have parsed their stuff before and its all rhetoric and misrepresentation.

Abiogenesis is taught as fact, yet is is none such, it is a gleam in the eye of hopeful atheists.

I do not attack you, Vade, but the Evolutionist case has simply not been made. Yes, I agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. But you know that I am not a literal Biblical Creationist. And I agree life has increased in its complexity over geological time. And I agree that the same amino acid bases comprise the genetic alphabet for all life.

Now this does not in any way establish that life came from non-life of its own magical accord or that one species evolved into another or that the Universe is comprised solely of material, and most emphatically the latter. Vade, the biologists don't know but they are not honest about it. They have conferences where they engage in an activity they call "tree-building". The physicists do not hold conferences where they engage in "formula-building" in any sense similar to the biologists.

It's about evidence, Vade. Show me. I've been lied to for a very long time.

My what a rhetorical answer! Ending with (drumroll!) a call for evidence? What's in the post you're "rebutting?" And what evidence have you ever posted?

But succession has not been established scientifically; i.e. there has been no credible mechanism that is supported by the evidence.

It has not escaped me either that when provided with evidence, you ask "What mechanism?" and when provided with the mechanism--think "variation and natural selection"--you ask "What evidence?" What's the problem? Can't keep more than one thought in your mind at a time?