Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
This set off bs alarms, but I'm still too early in my Evil Atheist training to pick them out.
99.99% of the fossil record being non-vertebrate seems fishy to me. Though I might have the definition wrong. Does non-vertebrate means sans bones? If that's the case, well, you know.
__________________
"Arguing with idiots is like banging your head on a rock. All you end up with is a headache and nothing to show for it." - Brian H. West (1986-?)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Invertebrate means without a spinal cord. (without vertebrae)
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
Anyway, I told that good fellow to look up the horse.
Anyone want to help me out here? I simply don't know enough to refute this. It goes back down to the "it's easier to make stuff up than to refute it" deal.
__________________
"Arguing with idiots is like banging your head on a rock. All you end up with is a headache and nothing to show for it." - Brian H. West (1986-?)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you talk about invertebrates and microorganisms, the colonies or some organisms may leave a fossil record, but the important stuff inside the orgainism, i.e. DNA or organelles are usually not preserved. If It is not preserved, then there is no "evidence". they are trying to use a loophole in the process of fossilization.
As far as the plants and insects go, I think Trodon mentions something about insects in another post. also,as far as plants, they are saying in the case of some ferns-they never evolved any further, which is ok because they are in a perfect niche and don't need to evolve- like those pines brought up in another post.
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
Last edited by pureone; 29th November 2003 at 07:35 PM.
Anyway, I told that good fellow to look up the horse.
Anyone want to help me out here? I simply don't know enough to refute this. It goes back down to the "it's easier to make stuff up than to refute it" deal.
I don't know about the percentages, but his argument get down to 'there are no transitional forms', which as we all know is a huge steaming pile of bovine faeces. Other people on this forum should have the references, I do not know where one should start looking for his desired vertebrate/invertebrate transitionals.
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
Hmm, this already got off on a bad foot with me. Anyone who thinks that additional exclamation marks or use of capitalization lends credence to their views is poorly mistaken.
__________________
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. (I think I think, therefore I think I am.)
Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less! What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record,there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!
What an absurd argument. Firstly, any such absence of invertebrate transitionals wouldn't invalidate the vertebrate ones. Secondly, bollocks. There are plenty of invertebrate transitionals.
Linear Mode
