That is the same trick that Darwin tryed to play on us. Islands are very small, and they are not a good indicator of what was going on in the mainlands. Unless you can find a very big island somewhere.
Like I said many times, around 12,000 years ago, as the ice was melting, the ocean level was going up. The islands shrank quite a bit in size and a lot of the land went underwater. This indeed had a new beginning, because this was the start of the coral reefs.
As, indeed there is another flaw. Darwin was not trying to trick you into anything. Either you agree with it or you don't. He just presented the evidence for an idea, and over time and a century and a half of it the scientific ideas have been chewed over and put together as well as we can. Science does not trick you. Science merely looks at the facts, and draws conclusions on them. You cannot change facts - but you can change conclusions.
As to the coral reefs, there were coral reefs before the rise in sea level as there were plenty of shallow seas for life to live in and evolve in.
None of the evidence that we have found even points to your ideas. In addition, your 'conclusion first, facts later' approach is logic of the worst kind. It's the very definition of circular reasoning.
Listen:
When scientists want to find out what happened in the world, they first look at the facts. The facts can be anything, but the truth is the facts do not change. They are pretty well grounded. The conclusion must therefore come after enough facts are in place.
I've heard repeatedly from you how you think that the Bible is the conclusion, so you try to mold whatever it is you want so that the Bible is right. Well I'd hate to tell you but that is just backwards. You are forming a conclusion before you even know the facts. Even if you do know some facts beforehand, you simply CANNOT form a conclusion until you have enough evidence to support it.
Call it what you will - whether the bible is right and we can't interpret it right, or the bible is fallible, the facts will always remain with or without that book. The facts are in fossils, in geology, in biology, in the air, in the ice, even in the DNA coursing through your veins.
If the bible is so important, then we simply must verify it anyway. We cannot blindly accept what King James (who was also a tyrant and a terrible translator) says is so.
I don't know how else to put it, but honestly you must research the facts first - without even a single conclusion in your mind. Only once your facts are put before you, can you begin to draw a sound conclusion.
A logical argument would follow as such:
1. Fact A (a fact which can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt)
2. Fact B (which also can be proven, etc.)
3. Therefore the conclusion is drawn from knowlege of Fact A and Fact B
Note, that a logical argument NEVER goes along this line:
1. Fact A (a fact which can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt)
2. Conclusion is drawn even without relavent evidence
3. Some 'fact' is fudged just to follow along with the conclusion.
A logical argument also never goes along this line:
1. Conclusion on whatever the hell you want something to be
2. Fudging 'fact' A so that it matches your idea
3. Hoaxing 'fact' B so that it also matches your idea and makes you look good.
I have seen so many creationists use poor logic in their defense for their arguments. They invariably use the second or third set of actions in order to further their point - regardless of the validity of any of their facts, or even if they Hoaxed them.
I've seen the evolution supporters use the first point of logic many times, and often NEVER the second form or third forms of bad logic I posted above. Evolution is clearly based on the facts we know. Evolution was not supported in the scientific community until the facts were there to support the idea. Even when the facts were found, the entire theory of Evolution was and has been re-written.
Fossils, Biology, Geology, etc. are the facts we have.
Evolution is the conclusion.
So yes, the theory of Evolution has changed over its lifespan, but it's the most logical conclusion based on the facts we are given. How many times has this happened in the religious world? How many times has the Bible been changed around just because someone didn't agree with what it said?
The truth is the Bible HAS changed a lot to agree with political and ideological thoughts at the time they were changed. If anything, the Bible is more of a conclusion than a fact, and is at the end of a poor logical argument based on sketchy thoughts and ideas that cannot, haven't, or could never be proven.
On the same token, millions of times the bible has been shown to have errancy, and to be fallible, but do creationists ever change it? They haven't changed much to it in the last few hundred years, in spite of the facts that we have uncovered with regards to science in this world.
Now, John, I don't think you ever realized that evolution is falsifiable, whereas biblical hogwash is not. John, if you have so much knowledge that can debunk evolution, simply write a journal on it, citing your sources and your evidence, and submit it to a few experts in the field.
If you want to make sound investments and be able to buy more houses that you can fix up, you would do well to do it if you are so confident in your ideas. You do realize that if you are able to disprove it, you will win over one million dollars and the Nobel Prize.
However, you probably don't wish to live up to the challenge or the high standard that scientists use in their research.
