Replies

Ichneumon,
Your camp dismisses almost every source I post, so why do you think that I would be willing to let you all pontificate about why the answers I post are incorrect, knowing that without the sources I have I am not qualified to answer your rebuttals? You (meaning your group) have dismissed my sources outright. I seriously doubt that even you have read EVERYTHING on the creationist websites and the evolutionists on this thread have a baby bathwater approach.

Nevertheless, if you insist on focusing on something, please explain for me 1)the probability of abiogenesis in light of what is known about what it takes for life to exist even in the simplest forms. 2)Where did the dinosaurs come from. 3)How evolutionary scientists can continue to claim that species develop into new and completely different types of species (I'm talking the big leaps over large amounts of time from say ape to human), when this kind of mutation of genetic material has never been observed, evidence refuting this kind of mutation existing is strong, and no indisputed transitional species have been found. And 4)The Cambrian Explosion and the sudden appearance of all sorts of things without any hint of something before them from which they evolved. For me, those would be strong negative arguments against evolution that would help to support at least consideration of the creation model. Dating methods and methologies are another sore spot, but I suspect we will be discussing them at a later posting.

As far as the Answers in Genesis posting I posted earlier, I will let them defend their own work. The Dr. that wrote these evidences has addressed some of the objections to his work, particular on the Helium issue, but you all can ferret that out. To me, the scientific evidences which are completely lacking are the idea that something came from essentially nothing by pure chance. That genetic mutations do not work the way evolution says they should. That the fossil record is full of millions of dead things but no indisputable transitional forms. And, that the fossil record itself does not back up evolution.

[Among your chosen topics] 4)The Cambrian Explosion and the sudden appearance of all sorts of things without any hint of something before them from which they evolved.

I've dealt with that one before in critiquing a paper on the Cambrian from the ~~prestidigitatious~~ prestigious Discovery Institute.

The paper.

What I said.

A very fast capsule summary:

Discovery Institute (and the creationist sources like John Woodmorappe from whom they quietly borrow their arguments) overlook evidence for Phylum-Level Evolution.
They hand-wave away (with one or two references to "deep-diverge" theory) the obvious possibility of--and hard evidence for--soft-bodied Precambrian precursors to hard-bodied Cambrian fossils.
They lawyer on arbitrary taxonomic classifications, ignoring similarities that point to recent divergence. In other words, they ignore the (rather basic) points Miller explains in Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.