Replies

So you're never exactly an ape and you're never exactly a fish. (But you do have structures that look a lot like gill slits.) Everything I said in 758 is still true. All you have is a "nothing means anything until I want it to" shrug.

Haeckelian recapitulation--what Haeckel attempted to propoose as a law of biology--is dead. But try a Yahoo! or a Google on "evolutionary developmental biology." It has a lot to do with why hatchling horshoe crabs are called "trilobite larvae."

And even if there were still trilobites somewhere, that wouldn't have made Young-Earth Creationism's problems with the geologic column go away.

As we've seen, however, probable in situ benthic fossils and fossil assemblages are hardly restricted to the Mesozoic. Instead, they occur in sediments attributed to all of the Phanerozoic systems.

Fossils and the Flood.

Flood geology theories popularized by young-earth creationists are nonbiblical doctrines. They are not demanded, or even suggested, by the text of Genesis...
As a scientific theory, flood geology is hopelessly at odds with the evidence. There is little concensus amongst flood geologists on basic questions such as Which processes have produced which deposits, Where are the boundaries between flood and pre/post flood strata, Why are fossil groups thus distributed in the geologic record, etc.

Evaluating the "Noah's Flood" Hypothesis.

Last but not least, Glenn Kuban responds to Bible.CA. Dinos and man coexisted all over the earth but only Carl Baugh and Don Patton can see it. Oh, yeah!

<< (But you do have structures that look a lot like gill slits.) >>

But they are NOT gill slits, and they never function as gill slits. People with double-chins still have structures that look like gill slits - but they don't breathe with their chin.

A black person's hair might look like the hair of a poodle. Does that mean one is evolving into the other?

<< Haeckelian recapitulation--what Haeckel attempted to propoose as a law of biology--is dead. But try a Yahoo! or a Google on "evolutionary developmental biology." >>

You guys refuse to give up even your most disproved theories. You just repackage them and rename them, and pretend like they are something else. Spontaneous generation becomes abiogenesis. Ether becomes quantum. Haeckel's law of recapitulation becomes "evolutionary developmental biology". If you call garbage, "refuse", it still should go on the curb to be picked up.

<< It has a lot to do with why hatchling horshoe crabs are called "trilobite larvae." >>

The fact that horseshoe crabs most resemble trilobites, of any well-known living creature, has more to do with it. They can CALL it whatever they want, that doesn't change the FACT that they ARE horseshoe crab hatchlings. They are not trilobites that become crabs.

Calling a fish a "tiger shark" doesn't mean it was born like a tiger and became a shark.

<< Flood geology theories popularized by young-earth creationists are nonbiblical doctrines. They are not demanded, or even suggested, by the text of Genesis... >>

Now the guy who doesn't believe the Bible is going to be the expert on what is biblical :-(

<< As a scientific theory, flood geology is hopelessly at odds with the evidence. >>

Flood geology would expect fossils, produced by water, all over the earth. Maybe even sea fossils on mountains. That's exactly what we find.

<< Last but not least, Glenn Kuban responds to Bible.CA. Dinos and man coexisted all over the earth but only Carl Baugh and Don Patton can see it. Oh, yeah! >>

Compare the link I gave to Kuban's baloney. Kuban would prove that the footprint you made in your backyard couldn't possibly have been made by a human.

All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan.

All you've offered is smoke and feathers (but no dino feathers) :-( mixed with generous helping of "beter arguments" (personal insults).