On 09/04/07, Alan <cfuture@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Dave Kahn:) Some forms do not appear below certain levels, implying
therefore that they either evolved or were created later than the deeper
==>That's the story. The "implication" is inferred ONLY because they are
already assuming that all forms were created from others. But between
any such two forms? Nothing. That's the "trade secret", but the trade
secret is blown. The cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn...
Transitional forms are not absent, they are merely rare. This
indicates that fossil formation itself is a relatively rare event. The
abundance of fossils therefore indicates that fossil formation has
been occurring for a very long time, and that transition takes place
over a short period in geological terms - a few thousand years is an
eye blink in geological terms.
"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not
have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most
complex morphological adaptations."Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge,
'Species Selection: Its Range and Power,' 1988, p. 19
But those paleontologists rarely mention the counter-evidence in the
fossils, besides the missing transitions:
__1__Polystrate fossils (fossils of individuals that straddle "millions
of years" of layers in sedimentary rock (where fossils are found)..(IIRC
there are thousands of these)
What "polystrate" means apparently is a fossil that is found embedded
in several geological layers. Young Earth Creationists argue that this
is evidence that the layers are formed very quickly - in one flood for
example. It is more likely that these fossils form in situ, in
already-formed layers that are still soft.
__2__Fossils in inverted layers (the "ancestral" fossils in layers
*above* the "descendant" fossils)...
__3__Entire geological and/or fossil "columns" completely inverted, or
two in inverted order, and in other "anomalous" configurations.
This happens, as one would expect, in areas that have experienced
geological upheaval. It never occurs in areas that have not been
__4__Fossils that contradict "established" theories (like Lucy, pounded
(literally) into darwinian submission by Leakey to compensate for
whatever blah blah it was...)
Do you have anything more than "blah blah"? In 1971 Richard Leakey
said that australopithecines "may have been knuckle-walkers" but this
statement did not refer to Lucy who was discovered in 1974. As you
tend to substitute innuendo for argument it's difficult to know
precisely what you mean.
__5__HUGE: Soft dinosaur tissue. There is a field of dinosaur bones in
Montana where a professed Christian, but evolutionist, paleontologist,
has discovered --->red blood cells<--- encapsulated in her dinosaur bones.
If you're referring to a find by Mary Schweitzer, reports that red
blood cells were found are simply untrue. Making little ASCII arrows
to highlight the red blood cells does not make them any truer.
__6__The same paleontologist that discovered soft tissue remains in her
dino digs said she was surprised at the -->overwhelming stench<>-- in
this dinosaur dig. Trade secret number Seven.
What is your reference for this please?
.....There's more where that came from.....
I've no doubt. Anything from a reputable source though?
(Albert asked)....How does ID explain the fossil record? Without delving
into creationism that is.
=>weird. That's my answer. A good example of the circular reasoning of
fanatical darwinism that rejects the obvious conclusions before asking
the question. .....But... among non-creationist "ID" proponents, there's
no one lone ID "explanation". Because ID *NE creationism. There are
creationist scientists who disapprove of all the attention to ID, in
part because it can distract attention from the Creator, and
creationism, among other reasons.
While me, I get a kick out of how darwinists and atheists trip all over
themselves trying to find a cogent argument against it.
((...design is faulty, since the species die out...))
What do you know about designing biology, even one autonomous,
self-reproducing-and-multiplying, self-repairing systemic unit with
perfect control software that has similar capabilities for self-repair,
with such a compact hardware-software combination as species have... Can
you do better? That what you mean? (Oh I get it. If you were God. Do you
think you can out-think a real God?)
So where the design looks good we can attribute that to God's genius,
and where it looks faulty that's because we lack God's insight. Pretty
hard to lose an argument if you take that position.
Life is marvelously designed to wage a mighty battle against entropy,
which is actually a strong evidence that the universe is
organizationally deteriorating, not organizing itself. Stephen Hawking
said a human "exports" (I think) ten thousands times as much entropy as
he takes in, for example.
And the species that exist, are forever adapting in amazing ways to
their surroundings even within their design parameters, which are
yielding up ever more amazing and ingenious designs for adaptation and
Life does have an amazingly efficient designer. It's called natural selection.
Gerald: Remember, it is the evolutionist that needs to prove the
"transitional > forms", not the creationist or IDist.
Booth: Why does the evolutionist *need* to prove anything to anyone?
==> Because it is the *(darwinian) evolutionist* that makes the
extraordinary claim that all life descended from one original common
ancestor, or at most a few proto-cellular forms. More the extraordinary
since the forensics (fossils) says that the comon genealogy is gone
On the contrary. Just about everything in science points that way,
from paleontology to geology to biology to chemistry to physics.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact