creat

Email from RF dated 17/03/04

(I have italicised parts for clarity)

This is not a game of one-upmanship with quotes, but just to address some of yours:

These quotes from others on transitional forms say a lot (these are just a few):

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/trans_forms.htm


So lets look at those quotes:

1) From Darwin 'The Origin of the Species'
This is taken from the head section of the chapter entitled 'Difficulties of the Theory'.
Later in the chapter he argues the case for how such a lack of forms could be explained (and bear in mind he was writing in the early 1850's, when we had far fewer fossils available for study). You need to address the arguments in support of his position, not his defintion of the problem.
This is disingenuous.

2) Quote from "Dr. Denton, PhD", and author of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
To describe him as an 'evolutionist' is dishonest.

3) Colin Paterson quote.
Colin Patterson was addressing a problem with a method of analysing the fossil record called cladistists. One of the key problems with the method is that it cannot identify ancestral forms, not because they don't exist, but because the method has no way of identifying them. This is the philosophical problem he mentions.
Perhaps you did not realise this when adding the quotation. If you fail to remove it (and I suggest that you check orignal sources rather than other creationist web sites) it will be dishonest

4) A 20 year old quote from "Newsweek" is hardly a reliable scientific source. I can see no justification for it's inculsion.

5) I can find no reference on the internet to "Scot M. Huges" other than the same quote repeated on other creationist sites. Who is he, and what did he study for his PhD? Why is this relevant?



What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what went before it.
Completely untrue, as even a brief study of palaeontology will reveal.


To deny this is to simply look in the other direction at findings over the last century. Here are some quotes from others on life appearing fully formed (these are just a few):

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/transitional.htm

1) Darwin again.
This is Darwin in standard mode of argument: he states a problem, then seeks to find a solution. Yet again, in isolating his statement of the problem you are misrepresenting his position. You need to address arguments he gives to support his postition, not his statement of the problem.
Disingenuous.

2) Stephen J Gould.
This can only be intended to misreprent Gould's positon. Again, it is part of a larger argument in which he presents his case that evolutionary change occurs in isolated and peripheral populations.

3) Bowler was writing about the state of play in 1858! We have found a large number of fossils in the past 150 years.
Deliberately misleading




And to 'cut to the chase'

1) As I mentioned with Natural Selection above, for example, saying the human liver mindlessly and without a conceived goal evolved into an organ that secretes bile and is active in the formation of certain blood proteins and in the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins by CHANCE is ludicrous.

Of course it is, and no scientist would make such a stupid statement! It is natural selection acting on mutations. The simpler forms leading to the human liver can be found in nature.

And our kidneys maintain proper water and electrolyte balance, regulate acid-base concentration, and filter the blood of metabolic wastes, which are then excreted as urine ALL by accident, by just HAPPENING to perform a critical function like this which is critical to sustain life is actually comical for people to say no goal was in mind and it was a mindless process for these to be created. To get the exact functioning kidney humans need to live is like hitting lotto. Then to do this with other organs is like hitting lotto again and again. The whole natural selection thing is comical.

You don't support your argument by misrepresenting the problem!


2) And the other claim about mutations is also a joke. Mutations are shown to be extremely rare, are typically a disadvantage,

Mutations: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html
Note: about 120 in each cell in humans.

and have never crossed rhe species boundary.

What is 'the species boundary'?

Yet evolutionists use this mutation discussion to help prove evolution from one species to another.

'Prove' is wrong. Provide supporting evidence would be correct.


3) And we can joke all night about all the hoaxes like Piltdown man

a hoax, and revealed as such by science

and Java man,

In what way was Java Man a hoax?

and the supposed

In what way 'supposed'?

finding of Neanderthal which many scientists say shows signs of a bone disease like rickets,

Way back in the 19th century a specimen was explained away as a modern human suffering from rickets. We have found many more specimens since then which show that neandertals are distincly different from modern man in many ways.

which explains it's appearance. Other says Neanderthal is very close to Aborgines.
Not since the 19th century!

Your sources are so out of date I wonder why you use them.


Richard Forrest
richard@plesiosaur.com
www.plesiosaur.com

Comments:

Email exchange:

";
This site is run entirely in my own time and at my own expense. If you find it valuable, a small donation using PayPal will help me keep it going.
£: