Discontinuity between the different kinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about this?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column

Does that cover what you are referring to?

i don't know, why don't you have a go at it. try using some of those arguments and see how they get shredded by anyone with even a basic understanding of the topic.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the proof as i'm sure you've been given but tend to ignore is in the geological record. the record shows that near extinction events have happened many times and every time, the prolific variety of species evolved once again.

if you can fine a better explanation for the vast evidence of the geological record, you're welcome to have your findings published. there will probably be an award in it for you.

They are published in the Bible my friend....

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if you bother to read any decent writing on evolution, all your basic evolution 101 questions would be answered. i bet they have already been answered before, but you just like acting the fool.

I'm the fool? Ha!

Originally posted by galveston75
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN4MHlKUhEc

Evolution? Yeah right.....

I think the 2nd part video proves Darwin's own words about the breakdown of his theory.

YouTube&feature=relmfu

Originally posted by RJHinds
This seems to me the same reason you would not see transitional fossils because they would all die out before they could be a transitional fossil. Is that right?

This seems to me the same reason you would not see transitional fossils because they would all die out before they could be a transitional fossil.

what? You are talking crap yet again. In what way is it the “same reason”?
Transitional forms, unlike none survivable deformities, would have survived to reproductive age so it is therefore NOT the “same reason”.

Originally posted by galveston75
Also a comment of the hundreds of thousands of different kinds that "just evolved".

In reality, how many different kinds of enviroments are there on this planet?

According to the first site I found, it's about 18. Lots of gray areas inbetween but still those are the basics.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/ecosystems.html


So if most needed to survive to begin with, he would have moved on or died.

Just a thought.........

In reality, how many different kinds of enviroments are there on this planet?

Millions if not trillions. There may be “18” main types but, of course, there are subtypes within each of those types and subtypes within those subtypes and so on.
For example, in a tropical rainforest environment, there is tree-top environment where certain epiphyte plants ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphyte “ epiphyte is a plant that grows upon another plant “ ) can grow which cannot grow on the floor of the forest which is a very different sub-environment.

So if most animal life lived in those basic ecosystems, lets say birds, why so many varities?

are you implicitly making the assumption here that only one species of each main type of living thing ( such as “birds” ) can evolve in each ONE environment (even a sub-environment ) ? i.e. the mathematical relationship here must necessarily be one-to-one?
If so, this assumption is false -what barrier would you imagine that would block the evolution of many species of, say, birds evolving in an identical environment (even a sub-environment ) ?

In the Kagu rainforest there is 2,500 species or more just in that one area. Why?

because they can evolve there and they did because here was no barrier blocking the evolution of many species in the same main type of environment ( and this is ignoring the issue that a main category of an environment such as the rainforest environment has many subtypes such as tree-top environments and ground environments and subtypes of those subtypes etc thus you can see it NOT merely as just one environment but many ) and evolution is an inevitable process under the right conditions so the conditions must have made it inevitable that many evolved.

If one bird was in that area to begin with and found food, water and shelter, why did he evolve into soooooo many varities? If he survived and was able to live there and reproduce, why change?

one answer would be that there are many sub-environments within that environment for evolution to optimise the design ( non-standard meaning of the word “design” here ) of the birds to each of those sub-environments.
But another reason is because there are different possible optimised survival strategies even in exactly the same environment; for example, the same environment may contain both insect food and seed food but each one of those food types requires a different optimised beak-shape and food-gathering instinct.

If there wasn't food, water and shelter in an amount needed to survive to begin with, he would have moved on or died.

yes. What if there WAS food, water and shelter in an amount needed to survive but ONLY to those with the right mutation? -now you will have the right conditions for evolutionary change.

Originally posted by galveston75
They are published in the Bible my friend....

So the bible says there is a god, therefore there is a god. You don't see the tiniest bit of circular reasoning here?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the bible says there is a god, therefore there is a god. You don't see the tiniest bit of circular reasoning here?

Lol. All that exist around you says there is a God, including yourself. If there were no God my friend you would not be walking on this planet because you would not exist and neither would this planet.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. All that exist around you says there is a God, including yourself. If there were no God my friend you would not be walking on this planet because you would not exist and neither would this planet.

No this is also a circular argument.

You have to prove that it's not possible for life/the universe/whatever to arise without a god
(and specifically your god) you can't just assert it.

And given that all the evidence actually points towards a natural formation of the universe and
of life then you can't possibly prove that we could only exist if god created us because we have
viable and valid explanations for our existence that need no god.

To prove that the universe is evidence of design you can't just disprove our current theories
(which you have not in any way done) but you have to disprove any and all possible natural
explanations to rule out all possible explanations other than the one you propose.

As you not only haven't done this but can't do this it is not reasonable or true to claim that
everything that exists is evidence for a god or gods.


And even if it were it would not be evidence of your god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No this is also a circular argument.

You have to prove that it's not possible for life/the universe/whatever to arise without a god
(and specifically your god) you can't just assert it.

And given that all the evidence actually points towards a natural formation of the universe and
of life then you can't possibly prove that we could only exist i ...[text shortened]... evidence for a god or gods.


And even if it were it would not be evidence of your god.

You have evidence that actually " points towards a natural formation of the universe " ? I will be thankful if you can describe it here.
Also , please do define what is a natural formation of the universe.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You have evidence that actually " points towards a natural formation of the universe " ? I will be thankful if you can describe it here.
Also , please do define what is a natural formation of the universe.

By 'natural formation of the universe' I meant that it was not created by an intelligence
(supernatural or otherwise).

And no I am not about to try to describe the best current explanations and evidence for the
formation of the universe here on this forum.


I could recommend a number of good books on the subject if you wanted to look into it.

But there is no way I can explain it in any meaningful way here.

Simplistic layman's explanations of the evidence and supporting theories are book length.



However I will say that while we do have evidence that points to a natural formation of the
universe and the running thereof, there is not proof that the universe wasn't created magically
by some supernatural being.

However claiming that it WAS created supernaturally is a positive claim that requires evidence and
proof itself.

And as I said, the mere fact of the existence of the universe and of us in it is not evidence of a
supernatural creation unless and until you have ruled out and disproved every other possible
explanation and only have supernatural creation left.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No this is also a circular argument.

You have to prove that it's not possible for life/the universe/whatever to arise without a god
(and specifically your god) you can't just assert it.

And given that all the evidence actually points towards a natural formation of the universe and
of life then you can't possibly prove that we could only exist i ...[text shortened]... evidence for a god or gods.


And even if it were it would not be evidence of your god.

" All the evidence"? What evidence other then what evolutionist make up? Lol

And I don't have to prove anything about creation as it's you and all you see even if you don't appreciate where it came from.

Who made the car you drive? A pond of scum or someone who designed it and then it took someone to build it.
Geeeez, I can't believe this is so complicated to so many.

Originally posted by galveston75
I'm the fool? Ha!

indeed. with every post you demonstrate that you don't even have a very basic understanding of evolution, you in your ignorance, you feel qualified to comment on it. that makes you the fool.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
indeed. with every post you demonstrate that you don't even have a very basic understanding of evolution, you in your ignorance, you feel qualified to comment on it. that makes you the fool.

Yes I do have a very good "basic knowledge" as you seem so concerned about. But even if I didn't, it doesn't take a fool to see on the first page of any grade school book that evolution is a joke and the only supposed proof it has is what we are are told by the writers of that book who say it is with their colorful little drawings of "how it could have happened".
OMgosh!!!!!!!!

As far as I'm concerned you might as well not post any futher comments to me until you have PROOF that evolution is not a THEORY, that I keep asking for and have not yet been shown. If it is true then it should be easy, right?

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes I do have a very good "basic knowledge" as you seem so concerned about. But even if I didn't, it doesn't take a fool to see on the first page of any grade school book that evolution is a joke and the only supposed proof it has is what we are are told by the writers of that book who say it is with their colorful little drawings of "how it could have ...[text shortened]... keep asking for and have not yet been shown. If it is true then it should be easy, right?

until you can prove that you have a basic understanding of evolution, it is pointless to have further discourse on the topic. educate yourself, then you may be qualified to comment on it and be taken seriously. until you do, you'll remain the fool.