pengee

You're responses so far fall so short of actually explaining anything, it proves a remark I once heard: "The average evolutionist has no idea how evolution is "supposed" to work." You're all following down the path of typical evolutionist responses: 1 - Label the evolutionist-dissenter a "creationist." Never mind that he said nothing about creation, your religion evolution says such an "infidel" must be a creationist. This takes the burden off you from giving any sensible response. Well, Hallelujah, Lord Darwin! 2 - Always refer the infidel to some other website or give him a bunch of links, and make sure to tell him that it's "already been explain" somewhere else. This keeps you from having to explain it yourself, which you couldn't do if you wanted to. If you knew what those other links or websites said, and evolution is so part of "factual" science you should've been able to explain something. Nothing, zilch. Lordy, Lordy, Charley must be turning over in his grave. 3 - A response like "most of your misinformation can be cleared" in some other websites shows an acute lack of understanding of the topic being discussed. There is no misunderstanding here. There is a simple biological scenario that should have happened in the past, that hasn't happened, and no one seems to be able to explain it except by just repeating the evolutionist mantra that says, effectively, "this is how it happened, period." We all know how and what happened. The fossil record says it very clearly. But you guys obviously haven't the faintest idea is why. The response "Since evolution is one of the most heavily evidenced theories in all of science, your claims are unsupported." This is such a disingenuous circular reasoning response. This is like saying Jesus Christ (whom I don't believe in, by the way) walking on water (which I believe is total nonsense) must have happened because it was witnessed by so many. Therefore it must be true. Right. Show me the witnesses, and show me the "heavy evidence" of evolution. Just making such statements doesn't make it so. And if evolution is so "heavily evidenced" one would think you could provide at least some of that evidence. Nothing! Just words. With the responses so far, no one has addressed a damn thing. In this short thread we've already had all the typical evolutionist responses: name calling, ridicule, go to "another website," and the foolishness goes on. Then we have that line you always find in every such thread that shows such a complete lack of comprehension of what's going on: "There are many of species in the fossil record that don't exist any more. And there are many more that have changed over the millennia." What on earth is this guy talking about? No concept of what the issue is here, just a response to give his finger exercise. This thread so far is like talking to an empty room. Not a shred of a substantive response. To all you who have yet to come upon this thread, who don't necessarily believe in evolution: Are you getting some idea of what you're up against? Evolution is not at all about science. It's about bulldozing people into "believing." No different than the most fanatical religions. Have you seen one logical, scientifically valid response here? Have you seen any response that actually answers anything? Nothing. It's like questioning someone's religion and being told it's already been explained in that other church. But no one can explain it, nor does anyone have any idea what or why they believe what they do. Maybe we'll get the answers at the resurrection Lord Darwin.

What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong? You go into cognitive dissonant mode. The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened -- the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent. Yes, we all know how genetic code pass down mostly the beneficial mutations to perpetuate the hardiest of the species. But this nonsense misses the point. In scenarios of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection," there would be those that were "not fit" or "not selected." Where are they? The absence of the unfit in the fossil record indicates that all life forms came into existence already "fit" and "selected." How do you account for such a practically flawless success rate? Of course, there is the misguided notion of how the misfit generally don't spawn successive generations and therefore leave few telltale traces. The problem with this notion is that accidental chaos happens in far greater numbers than accidental benefits. Fossils of the misfit, even if they never survived to spawn successive generations, should have far outnumbered our current collection of fossils. But they hardly exist. Natural selection on the genetic level cannot account for this inexplicable lack of "misfit" fossils. Before the first drastically different family of life forms (the first dog, the first bird, the first snake, etc.) came into existence, the genetic code could not possibly have held the genetic design for their precise characteristics. At some point, drastic genetic mutations must have occurred to produce these new life forms. And for every "first" of a new life form, there would have to have been the spawning of literally millions of misfit predecessor variations that were weeded out by natural selection. Then you'd have survival of the fittest. As it stands, we have only the fit. It's one thing to claim that natural selection on the genetic level can weed out bad genes. But that the genetic process can weed out, prior to birth, the first birds without wings, fish without fins, lions without teeth, etc., is preposterous. These aberrations would have to exist before they could be eliminated by natural selection. The possible variations of "misfit" creatures are almost limitless. There is simply no explanation for how nature produced virtually every new life form in a state already fit to survive, as the fossil record shows over and over. There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain. Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion. It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it. Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon. Sorcery and witchcraft were also "scientific" and "well understood" in their time. None of it was ever based on evidence, yet had strong followings. Evolution fulfills 21st Century man's need to believe in a great mystical power beyond himself. Welcome to the supernatural.