You know what I truly find refreshing when I read the creation sites? How often they don't use the all-inclusive terms that I find litered throughout so much of the evolution threads and sites. Does anyone know of a good (yet humble) evolution site that is willing to stick to the facts w/o telling jumping to conclusions not supported by the data?
Your thread sounds like multiple evidences for the missing link but please tell me, show me. Also you probably realize that we are most likely looking for missing chains not links...
Then in the last 2 paragraphs you indicate just about everything the www.creationscience.com debunks. If it were truly just one or two anomolies than I would never bother posting replies to this crevo thread. Please re-read the scientific method and stick to things that can be presented truthfully - please.
"A Young-Earth Creationist understands evolution like the average American understands the IRS Tax Code."
Explain yourself. We have multiple transitional species, what do you want?
Then in the last 2 paragraphs you indicate just about everything the www.creationscience.com debunks. If it were truly just one or two anomolies than I would never bother posting replies to this crevo thread. Please re-read the scientific method and stick to things that can be presented truthfully - please.
All of the explanations I've seen for these things from creationists are complete nonsense. If it so obvious what the solutions are, tell me. I looked at the site you mentioned but don't see anything but the usual hand-waving.
It appears you wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and attached itself to your rear.
So, some things that would indicate evolution is not true. If evolution is not true and YEC is we would expect to see a complete mixup in the fossil record--Permian creatures fossilized with Quaternary ones, no sorting of microfossils, and no lines of evolution with increasing complexity and specialization (we see these with foraminifera, ammonites, horses, stegosauri, etc.) The genetic data would be all mixed up and we wouldn't be able to use nested heirarchies based off multiple genes to organize phylogenies. The ERV and pseudogene data that indicates common ancestry of apes and humans would be absent.
In the geologic data we would not find sedimentary rocks containing fossils overlaid with igneous rock that indicates it was formed on dry land. Since YEC say in general that fossils were laid down during the Flood, overlaying igneous rocks should be in the form of pillow lava indicating deposition under water. Since coal seams were supposed to originate from vegetation mats deposited during the Flood, we would not see dinosaur tracks across coal seams indicating these originated as peat in swampy areas. Likewise, we wouldn't see fossilized rootlines growing down into the coal from when in the swamp trees grew in it. There would not be the sharp divisions in the stone we see caused by long-term variations in the levels of certain elements, such as the drastic change from green Permian rock to red, iron-rich Triassic rock. Since all fossils are supposed to have been deposited in the Flood, every fossil should carbon date to the same recent age.
Everything that we see indicates an old earth and old universe, and all of the fossil and genetic evidence indicates evolution and common descent. What's more, observation of living animals and examination of their genomes has provided us with a huge amount of information on by what mechanisms evolution could occur. We have come to see that mutations are not universally negative and that information can be added to a genome. We can observe natural selection occuring in front of our eyes. These observations provide all of the information needed to conclude that evolution can and did happen.
I've skimmed through the book on the site you suggested. None of these topics was tackled in the slightest that I could see. You're welcome to take a crack at it.