Jump to content


Something Fishy About The Global Flood


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:04 AM

Can you please give me a reference to a paper or site that has evidence of an ape giving birth to a human.


Go to a hospital, you can observe it for yourself. It happens all the time.

Hint: Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family.

As I said, what you see in the sediment is what we "observe" today.
Things buried deeper in the sediment are things that live lower down in the earth today. Things that are buried higher in the sediment are things that we see living higher up on the earth today. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?


You don't seem to understand that below a certain level not a single mammal is found. As we go up in the fossil record we see creatures that look increasingly like mammals and then they begin to become increasingly abundant. Then they are everywhere. Below a certain level not a single reptile is found. We see things starting to look more and more like reptiles and then they become abundant. It's the same for amphibians, etc.

Here is a good quote from Stephen Jay Gould on these flood geology 'sorting' ideas;
"Surely, somewhere, at least one courageous trilobite would have paddled on valiantly (as its colleagues succumbed) and won a place in the upper strata. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot temporary escape. But if the strata represent vast stretches of sequential time, then invariant order is an expectation, not a problem. No trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. No man keeps lithified company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished."

#62 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:04 AM

Hi Tezza.

Go to a hospital, you can observe it for yourself. It happens all the time.


Are you trying to convince me Tezza, or yourself?

You don't seem to understand that below a certain level not a single mammal is found. As we go up in the fossil record we see creatures that look increasingly like mammals and then they begin to become increasingly abundant. Then they are everywhere. Below a certain level not a single reptile is found. We see things starting to look more and more like reptiles and then they become abundant. It's the same for amphibians, etc.


It's you Tezza that don't understand what I'm saying. You say you see certain animals changing into other type of animals. Can't you see that this is an illusion created by your mind superimposing your world view on some bones in the mud?

The most abundant fossils are the anthropods which, according to your theory, appear suddenly, fully formed without even a hint of perceived predecessor by even the most imaginative of minds. It is the same for every single other organism extant or extinct. Not one transitional fossil of any living or dead animal.

What I am saying is that things were buried where they were, within a very short period of time, by water and mud. Everywhere on the earth.

I don't know why you quote Gould, he's not a gradualist. It's an example of my 'contradicting conceptualizations'. Evolution can happen gradually or it can happen quickly. Doesn't matter, the TOE can handle that. Just as long as no-one tries to pin down the actual mechanism. Or God forgive...a mathematical statement.

Here is a good quote from Stephen Jay Gould on these flood geology 'sorting' ideas;
"Surely, somewhere, at least one courageous trilobite would have paddled on valiantly (as its colleagues succumbed) and won a place in the upper strata. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot temporary escape. But if the strata represent vast stretches of sequential time, then invariant order is an expectation, not a problem. No trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. No man keeps lithified company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished."


Gould lived on earth for about 60 years yet he knows the supposed 3.5 billion year history of the planet; neglecting actual documented historic literature that witnesses to major catastrophic events. He believed that this was the work of superstitious knuckle dragging ape-men.

Man may have stepped on trilobites. But fossils only form from rapid burial by mud and water.

#63 Guest_Tezza_*

Guest_Tezza_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 07:53 AM

The point was simple; humans are apes, so we have lots of evidence of "an ape giving birth to a human," which is what you asked for.

This has been mentioned elsewhere, but it points out all the relevant stuff;

FfSvktyxVYA

Or as Ken Miller said; “Mammals occupy virtually every corner of this planet. Some are very large, some are extremely small, some are quick, some slow, some burrow into the ground, some swim in the ocean, some climb the highest trees. They differ enormously, as Henry Morris might say, in terms of their “hydrodynamic” properties (shape and weight), “ecological habitats,” “differential mobility and strength.” Yet, not a single mammalian fossil appears until the very last strata from the creationist “flood” were laid down. And when they do appear, with incredible bad luck, the fossils arrive in just the right sequence to piece together imaginary evolutionary sequences in a dozen different families. Why is it that the first mammal to appear happens to be the most reptile like of all subsequent mammals and happens to appear just after the most mammal like of all reptiles? Shouldn’t a single family of moles near the shore have been trapped by the rampaging waters and fossilized in the Cambrian period? Shouldn’t swimming mammals have been fossilized alongside the jawless and jawed fishes in the early stages of the flood?”

Moreover, as I said previously;

With regard to these 'flood sorting' ideas, what about plants? Below a certain level there are no flowering plants, only non-flowering plants, so did they outrun flowering plants? Are they smarter?

Also, their pollen (which is easily dispersed from its source and found almost everywhere today, even in oceans and the arctic, etc) is also only found late in the fossil record. Pollen embedded in amber has the same distribution in the fossil record as free pollen.

Perhaps flowering plants are smarter and faster than some animals?

Not one transitional fossil of any living or dead animal.


Every single working paleontologist who is capable of assessing the fossil record completely disagrees. So do creationists who have training in the field.

I don't know why you quote Gould, he's not a gradualist. It's an example of my 'contradicting conceptualizations'. Evolution can happen gradually or it can happen quickly.


Wrong again I'm afraid. You don't even have to have read his entire works on punctuated equilibrium, you could have simply read the wikipedia entry;

"Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution, Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism, pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next."

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 February 2010 - 08:04 AM

The point was simple; humans are apes, so we have lots of evidence of "an ape giving birth to a human," which is what you asked for.

View Post


Can you substantiate that assertion with empirical facts Tezza? If not, as per the forum rules of "macro-evolution equivocation" I am giving you this warning.

#65 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 25 February 2010 - 01:01 PM

Except when they are saturated they sink.  Which unless I'm mistaken they would be by a flood.

View Post

How many plants will survive a flood? (I'm guessing a majority)

How many plants would have been torn out of the ground by torrents?
(the answer doesn't matter)

If they were torn out of the ground, would enough seeds survive to be redistributed? yes

Again, simple answers are usually the best answers. God didn't intend for our understanding of the Earth to be so complicated, He did give us dominion over it.

#66 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:53 PM

  Hi again McStone. I really appreciate your eagerness to debate this issue.


Not at all.

"As I know"?. I don't subscribe to your false assertion; your premise fails. There are plenty of dead genes within the environment that produce no proteins.


Lucy, stop deliberately getting bogged down in semantics. The fact that you even followed me up on that shows, without doubt, your undying willingness to take things literally. "Non coding" can apply to non-coding sequences, extinct genes and more. "Non-coding" refers to things which dont presently code for anything. I didnt think i had to explain that.

Forgive my ignorance McStone, I haven't done much research on this topic. Can you please give me a reference to a paper or site that has evidence of an ape giving birth to a human. Is that something that happens in the lab...or in the fertile minds of God deniers?

And also, if you can establish this with reasonable certainty, it should be a simple straightforward process to show that some other, less evolved animal gave birth to an ape and so on down the line. Where did the minerals and chemicals come from to produce the first animal? A rock?


LOL. Your analysis of evolution is so simplistic. Its the classic creationist misunderstanding of the subject:

"Yeah? When was the last time you saw a man come from an ape??? God denier!!!"

For the record its not what evolution even postulates. Humans didnt suddenly spring forth from a chimp-like animal, and no one would dream of saying as much. Human evolution, like that of all species, exists on a gradient. The only reason it looks so "distinct" is because of our reading frame. Because we are the only Homo species still alive, the differences with other species are more apparent.

Human ancestors progressively acquired a number of characters; not least, an expansion of cranial capacity and bipedialism (linked, among other things to a changing environment, and observed, at the same time, in other ape species). These can be traced though the fossil record, oh, and you guess it, are also confirmed by genetic evidence. You have a god, you must realise, who, not satisfied with creating chimps and humans >98% indentical, also creates a whole range of other "human-like" species, and even, shock horror, creates other species of human. Despite best YEC argument, it doesnt change the fact that other human species existed; they are other human species, genetically isolated from us, despite sharing our ranges for hundreds of thousands of years. Puzzling that, wouldnt you say? And no, before you say it, they didnt suffer from some continental-wide bout of rickets or some head condition.

Your understanding of Abiogenesis is also cynical. Life formed from organic compounds, which form spontaneously. Your use of "Rock" is merely a cheap rabble-rousing tactic. Who, afterall, wants human life dirtied by being associated, somehow, with the natural world?

Life, or the precusor of life, may well have come from some rock-catalysed reaction, (most probably clay) because Lucy, these things - called elements - are the same in rocks as they are in life forms, they are just, at the end of the day, in a different order. Life forms extract energy and elements from the environment around them. Sometimes indirectly through other organisms, sometimes directly, like the fascinating chemoautotrophs of hydrothermal vents, who extract the energy from elemental sulphur - pumped, quite literally - from inside the earth. Carbon, once absorbed in the ocean, finds its way into rock, right at the bottom of the ocean, and, over past periods of time, may be slowly uplifted through metamorphism and volcanic activity, may enter the atmosphere, may be absorbed by plants, be eaten, respired and excreted and may enter the ocean again. You can actually trace the process. Plants are made from carbon atoms, which originally come from the ground. We all are.

Same with water, same with nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, silica.....
The point is, life is a conduit of the earths chemical energy. Evolution is about the streamlining of that process.

Does abiogenesis sound so silly now?
If you are so different from this process, why do you breath? Why do you eat? Why didnt god think it appropriate to remove that most degrading process - that great leveller - going to the toliet? Like it or not, you are part of this world, and its rules.

As for your comments on god, believing in god is a personal belief. If the above stops you believing in god, so be it. If not, so be it.
It doesnt stop the above being truthful.
I also find your opinions of "fertile minds" a bit ironic. Your alternative is so basic that, essentially, a 5 year old child with your worldview - despite having no life experience, or substantive education - would know the same about the world and its origin as an adult with your worldview. Apparently, the academic power of Noah et al. doesnt know any age limits. Mind you, personally, i dont think i would appreciate the whimsy of the "Noah's ark jigsaw" nearly half as much.

Posted Image

My god. Its science in action. Right down to the smiling sun. Look at them. The're all having a WHALE of a time. From the look of them, you wouldnt think God has just destroyed the world and doomed them to a future of genetic inbreeding.

You were saying something about having a fertile mind?


As I said, what you see in the sediment is what we "observe" today.
Things buried deeper in the sediment are things that live lower down in the earth today. Things that are buried higher in the sediment are things that we see living higher up on the earth today. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?


Yes, because its complete and utterly nonsensical. Your still not grasping what im saying. Beyond a certain layer, we dont find certain classes. It doesnt matter if these classes are still alive today, or that the classes are now extinct. The fossil record is graduated, beyond all reasonable assertions of

"well they lived in different areas"


I don't know where you're coming from here McStone. Is 'Pride and Prejudice' a mirror image of 'A tale of two Cities'? They both contain all the same symbols, a lot of the same words and many of the same sentences.


Well they are both good books (by english authors, i might add), but i suspect you want to dig a little deeper then that.

So let me spell it out as simply as i can:

At the very bottom of the fossil record (c. 1.7bya), we find simple eukaryotic organisms; algae mats and such. We dont find anything more complicated below them.
When we look at eukaryotic genomes, the simplest - not in terms of nucleotide number - the simplest in terms of genes and their products, are simple one celled organisms, just like the constituents of algae mats

We go a bit higher in the fossil record (c. 630mya), we start to find simple protostome animals - animals distinguished by their first embryonic hole becoming their mouth. We dont find protstomes any lower.
When we look at modern animal genomes, the simplest, in terms of body plan coding etc - are those of protostomes.

If we go even higher (c. 540mya), we start to see deutrostomes - the ancestors of all vertebrates.
Fossil deutrostomes are distinguished by the first embryonic hole becoming their ass. We dont find deutrostomes any lower.
If we look at modern deutrostome genomes, we see deutrostomes have the genes necessary to develop a core complicated infolding in the embryo.

Higher still (c. 530mya), we see fossils progressively start displaying notochords, nerve cords, pharyngeal slits and craniums. We dont find these characters any lower.
If we look at modern animals with these characters, we find that genomes get more complicated with each of these additions. The new characters are added to the genome, but not in replace of the previous ones.

Higher still (c. 390mya), we find fossils that have 4 limbs. We dont find fossils with four limbs below this level.
If we look at modern animals with 4 limbs, we see their genomes have new hox genes added to those of their non-limbed brethrin.

and so on. Thats a worldwide pattern. Thats the best way i can explain it. Its not easy to read. But thats the general trend.

Anyone willing to spill the beans why?


Lastly, ive picked this little quote from bobabelever:

Again, simple answers are usually the best answers. God didn't intend for our understanding of the Earth to be so complicated, He did give us dominion over it.


That, my friends, is the summation of creationism. What does the world matter? What does the evidence matter? Why complicate things?
Its like you've got a "get out of education free card" because it happens to be "complicated". Dont worry, bobabelever, you dont have to burden yourself with it. Scientists will make sure crops still grow, that oil still runs, that you have medicine.

Ask yourselves whether you are happy with such a simplistic - such a dogmatic - view of the world. The very fact that im here debating it shows it cannot be "perfect". Its not as simplistic as bobabelever would have you "beleve".

God, as you understand him at least, is a fool.

Im going to take a stab in the dark here. But im going to guess that you dont think man-made global warming is happening either. If you do think its happening, you dont think its important. Why do you think i can guess this so accurately?

#67 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:33 PM

Dr Kathleen Pollards work still shows a 1% difference...the researcher in your article is misinformed.

Kathleen Pollard website
Scientific American article

Peace

View Post


Oh good lord. I provided a source that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Now secular sources are misinformed too? :lol:

#68 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:37 PM

You don't seem to understand that below a certain level not a single mammal is found. As we go up in the fossil record we see creatures that look increasingly like mammals and then they begin to become increasingly abundant. Then they are everywhere. Below a certain level not a single reptile is found. We see things starting to look more and more like reptiles and then they become abundant. It's the same for amphibians, etc.


Could you show us this place with that ordering of fossils? I did'nt think so.

Here is a good quote from Stephen Jay Gould on these flood geology 'sorting' ideas;
"Surely, somewhere, at least one courageous trilobite would have paddled on valiantly (as its colleagues succumbed) and won a place in the upper strata. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot temporary escape. But if the strata represent vast stretches of sequential time, then invariant order is an expectation, not a problem. No trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. No man keeps lithified company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished."


Evidence of his story?

"[W]ell represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."
(Gould, S.J., 1988, "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness", Natural History, Vol. 97, No. 12, December, p.14)


Oops. I guess there is no reason to believe in that one either. :lol:

#69 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:49 PM

Ask yourselves whether you are happy with such a simplistic - such a dogmatic - view of the world. The very fact that im here debating it shows it cannot be "perfect". Its not as simplistic as bobabelever would have you "beleve".

God, as you understand him at least, is a fool.


He's not a fool. He simply wants everyone to be decieved and condemded for some silly little thing that Adam did. After rehabbing his anger issue he decided to give everyone a second chance. So whose the fool now? :lol:

#70 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:51 PM

Oh good lord. I provided a source that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Now secular sources are misinformed too? :lol:

View Post


Yes...if they are not current experts in the field...such as Dr Pollard.

Peace

#71 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:55 PM

McStone, I see that you have neglected to post that picture of the geological ordering that you claim exist.

Please provide a real picture of the evolutionary ordering of the fossils... in the strata... not a fancy texbook drawing, but a real picture.

Until then, all that you have said is mere wishful thinking, so please, provide the evidence, which in your case should be easy, provide the picture so this thread can continue in honest debate.

#72 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:56 PM

Yes...if they are not current experts in the field...such as Dr Pollard.

Peace

View Post


I think it's anyone that does'nt agree with your "outdated' philosophy,but your more than welcome to believe they are only 1% different. I know better.


Enjoy.

#73 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:57 PM

I think it's anyone that does'nt agree with your "outdated' philosophy,but your more than welcome to believe they are only 1% different. I know better.
Enjoy.

View Post


Dr Pollards' work is the most current.

Peace

#74 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 February 2010 - 06:01 PM

The point was simple; humans are apes, so we have lots of evidence of "an ape giving birth to a human," which is what you asked for.


Empirical evidence requires observation of a testable process. Did you or anyone else observe the process in which you claimed happened?

Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

Interpretation of a dug up fossil does not meat the criteria of being empirical because the claimed interpretation is not:

1) Observable.
2) Experienced.
3) Or provable in a repeatable experiment.

It is a conclusion. Conclusion can be effected by many things. Some which are no where near being scientific. Like being bias, prejudice, favoring one idea over another, etc...

#75 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 25 February 2010 - 06:05 PM

http://www.planetary...iving_Deep.html
Just to warn you, there's a lot of bias in that article. So many assumptions...

But anyway, just something I found that might be interesting. Bacteria that live underground, where no other creature can go. I don't think you'd find anything much larger than a bacteria deep underground. So logically bacteria would be the only creatures found up to a certain point in depth following the flood.

#76 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 25 February 2010 - 07:13 PM

How many plants will survive a flood?  (I'm guessing a majority)


Do you do any gardening? I ask because I have done a little. But I have done enough to know if you over water a plant it will drown. How can a majority of plants survive if they are underwater for such a long time? Also, they would be burried by all the sediments that a global flood would produce. You know the same layers that a creationist believes buried all known life at the time.



How many plants would have been torn out of the ground by torrents?
(the answer doesn't matter)


:lol: we agree on this.

If they were torn out of the ground, would enough seeds survive to be redistributed? yes


Water-logged seeds would not germinate.

Again, simple answers are usually the best answers.  God didn't intend for our understanding of the Earth to be so complicated, He did give us dominion over it.

View Post


I like this quote. Although I disagree with the second half of it.

#77 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 12:53 AM

McStone, I see that you have neglected to post that picture of the geological ordering that you claim exist.

Please provide a real picture of the evolutionary ordering of the fossils... in the strata... not a fancy texbook drawing, but a real picture.

Until then, all that you have said is mere wishful thinking, so please, provide the evidence, which in your case should be easy, provide the picture so this thread can continue in honest debate.


How does that work exactly?

"Thats an interesting theory Sir, but can you produce a picture"
"Well, not really, were dealing with vast scales here you understand. The geology of the whole world in fact"
"I see. Im going to have to mark you down"

No Scott, i cannot produce a nice little picture for you, because we are dealing with the real world here. As good as technology is, you cannot yet take a photograph downwards, through layers of rock, hundreds of meters thick. No one scientists knows everything. Thats the point. Indepedendant observations varified around the globe.
Around the globe, we dont find mammals below reptiles. No doubt thats enough for you to disregard "all that i have said". You can, however, find all the information - all the evidence you need - in actual journals - you know, those things where people submit science? The journals Nature and Science are particularly good on "whole world" kind of stuff.

Nevertheless, heres a nice one about the carbon cycle i was telling you about:

Posted Image

Yes i know its a diagram. But at least the Sun isnt smiling in this one.

#78 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 01:46 AM

McStone,

What do the numbers in the diagram mean?

#79 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 01:51 AM

McStone,

What do the numbers in the diagram mean?

View Post



Its the flux of carbon in gigatonnes per year. Humans are putting more into the atmosphere than can be absorbed in soil, ocean, and by photosynthesisers.

#80 Lucy The Ape

Lucy The Ape

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Outback Australia

Posted 26 February 2010 - 03:18 AM

Hi there Tezza,

The point was simple; humans are apes, so we have lots of evidence of "an ape giving birth to a human," which is what you asked for.


I might take offence at being called an ape, but call yourself and your parents whatever you like. All the maternity hospitals around here only admit humans. The only apes around here are contained in the zoo. Just because some one says that we are the same kind of animal, when observations shows the diametrical opposite, means absolutely zilch. That's their belief. We all have them.

You might believe you are more evolved than your mother or father because on average you have about 40 more mutations. But let me tell you this son, your mother and father are more capable genetically than you will ever be.

I don't know who made that video but he was either ignorant of or deliberately misconstruing Paton's model.

Or as Ken Miller said;


Ken Miller? No comment.

Kurt wise is a young earth creationist!

Gould is an ex evolutionist.

Now the only argument of yours worth pursuing is the fact that non flowering plants appear lower down in the strata than flowering plants. Without doing any research I'll just have a guess. When you are talking about non flowering plants I assume you are talking about ferns, moss, algae; that kind of thing. So I assume that they have very week rooting systems or none at all. But I'll get back to you on that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users