Archaeologica.org

You might want to consult Matthew 7:6 Essan.

There are many examples where fossils of a succession of species have been discovered, each exhibiting subtle changes oin a sequence from an archair form to it's modern counterpart

bujt you are assuming that the animal fossilized in perfect position to display such 'changes'

daft straw man argument

not at all, that is just an excuse to avoid the reality that nothing in antiquity supports the evolutionary theory.

These are recognised rather by the fact that a large number of species disappear completely from the fossil record.

that itself is a weak argument, knowing that the fossil record is sparse this type of argument is a wild speculation.

Top limit for carbon dating etc maybe

other dating systems are not proveable especially their half-life let alone their decay rate.

Another staw man

no, another pointing out that reality doesn't support evolution or its process.

Yet another straw man

no, it is another point revealing that the evolutionary theory is so structured that no one can provide proof, which leaves you with ----faith and magic.

The fossil record indicates a long period for evolution

no it doesn't, all it can prove is that a species was fortunate (?) enough to be fossilized and that it existed at some time.

If you are going to copy horseshit from creationist web sites you should at least provide a link, arch.

Personally, I prefer the guy who thinks the Flintstones is a documentary!

tj wrote:You might want to consult Matthew 7:6 Essan.

Instead of Matthew 7:6 try this audio excerpt from The Book of Arch 1:-1


http://nteu53.homestead.com/files/gifted.mp3

It's an .mp3

Horses are an obvious example. If Eohippus evolved from the Arabian Stallion

"However, far from being the well established fact that evolutionists portray it to be, the horse series is plagued with many serious problems...consider the following list...
1. a complete list of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order does not exist anywhere in the world.

2.there are over 20 different geneaological trees of the so-called horse series.

3. the fossil horse series starts in north america, jumps to europe and then back again.

4. the sequence from small many toed forms to large one toed forms is completely is completely absent in the fossil record.

5. eohippus, the earliest member of the horse evolution series, is completely uncoinnected by any sort of link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

6. there are no evolutionary intermediates between each of the horsessss. each appears abruptly in the fossil record.

7. the teeth of the animals found are either grazing or browsing types. there are no transitional types of teeth.

8. two modern day horses (equus nevdenis and equis occidentalsis) have been found in the same fossil stratum as eohippus."

dr. scot m. huse, pg. 143-4 'the collapse of evolution'.

It seemsArch hasfailed to understand yet again the simplest concepts of evolution .So will explain it as I would to my 6 years old son .
quote Arch 6. there are no evolutionary intermediates between each of the horsessss. each appears abruptly in the fossil record.

7. the teeth of the animals found are either grazing or browsing types. there are no transitional types of teeth.

8. two modern day horses (equus nevdenis and equis occidentalsis) have been found in the same fossil stratum as eohippus."unquote
6 There are no necessary transitions in an evolutionary process .They are mutations which prove to be benefitial for the news species .As the DNA strands in a particular chromosome are changed by cosmic rays or another mutagene ,changes occur random ,small changes can have big consequences as demonstrated in genetic disorders.You will not find a transition state between a healthy person and another one suffering from spina bifida.
Same logic applies to point 7
The fact that different types of horses existed during the same period is no argument AGAINST evolution, it is an argument that diversification is part of evolution .At some point eventually onespecieswill be more adapted to changed habitat and get the upperhand .Allthis hasbeen proven beyond reasonable doubt already Now if my six year old son can understand that ,how come you dont ? PerhapsI must point you out that even human beings can willfully provoke newsubspecies like the different varieties within the canine race .Why should nature not be able to work the same mechanism ?Only if you start from the axioma that the earth is more or less tenthousandyears old will you get in trouble with the concept of evolution .But then again you just will have to take the bible as face value and dismissscience alltogether . Reading the bible does not necessarily make you stupid Arch,believing it does however .Continuing to believe it against all evidence points to mental disorder ,it is called delusion .Furthermore believing that scientists have no other goal than to disprove the bible is probably paranoia.In europ nobody practises science with the idea in his head that we have to try to prove the bible wrong .
Nobody cares about the freakin book here anyway .It holds no place whatever in our life,nobody thinks about it even,it isnever quoted in newspapers,on TV.Personaly I think you and the likes of you are a disgrace to your country as you wage a lost war against science and progress of the human species .

that crap about horses was taken from godrules.net
a well known site for religious bullshit like dating the earth all the way back to 4000bce in line with Bishop Ushers chronology that is now laughed at by both catholicism that created it and every other organised religious group on earth
in fact you actually breached their copyright when you posted that without crediting them
which means that you just lost your chance of salvation you sinner and you'll probably have to burn in hell for all eternity as way of atonement
gotta love the way they think the KJV is the ultimate bible as well
perhaps they havent heard of the Hebrew bible which is actually the original and not a derivation made for white folk to subjugate other races with

Minimalist wrote:

tj wrote:You might want to consult Matthew 7:6 Essan.

Instead of Matthew 7:6 try this audio excerpt from The Book of Arch 1:-1
http://nteu53.homestead.com/files/gifted.mp3
It's an .mp3

I swear you're out to get my monitor and will stop at nothing until the damn thing blows up from all the coffee YOU make me spit on it.

Yeah...gotta watch that coffee!

that crap about horses was taken from godrules.net

i didn't get it from there nor did the author.

in fact you actually breached their copyright when you posted that without crediting them

nice try but you are wrong.

It seemsArch hasfailed to understand yet again the simplest concepts of evolution .So will explain it as I would to my 6 years old son .

typical response. i haven't failed tounderstand anything, i just point out the errrosrs i find .

Continuing to believe it against all evidence points to mental disorder ,it is called delusion

that is the evolutionists problem not the bible believer's.

Nobody cares about the freakin book here anyway .It holds no place whatever in our life,nobody thinks about it even,it isnever quoted in newspapers,on TV.Personaly I think you and the likes of you are a disgrace to your country as you wage a lost war against science and progress of the human species .

that is your problem not mine. just affirm's the fact that you are everything you accuse creationists of being plus you are hypocritical.

Only if you start from the axioma that the earth is more or less tenthousandyears old will you get in trouble with the concept of evolution

believing evolution puts you on the trail to destruction, time for you to re-evaluate your position. it is so funny how you will believe something happened without proof milions of years ago yet cannot believe the simple truths of the Bible as they are proven by archaeology.

There are no necessary transitions in an evolutionary process

this is funny as you again make evolution so haphazard and arbitrary that when you are proven wrong you can come out with this excuse to justify your beliefs.

many years ago when i was travelling the states i learned that people would believe a fanciful tale before they would believe the truth. people don't want the truth that is why they stick to such fables as evolution. they do not want to deal with the realities of life, if they can pretend then they are happy.

you can't escape the truth of the Bible

you can't escape the truth of the Bible

Oh, sure you can....it's easy. Just realize that it is all a pile of horseshit and the load lightens immediately.

Now, if you could find some facts to support your belief that would be something else....but you can't and smarter people than you have wasted their lives looking.

well it is a lot better than finding a piece of a fossil and building up a whole theory around it and declaring that piece is proof. (the fish fossil that 'crawled' over land posted in another forum)

it becomes funny seeing how supposedly intelligent men can fabricate such a theory then expect to be taken seriously.

As usual Arch does not even refute anything at all ,failing to understand that evolution is the result of changes happening randomly is certainly no argument against it .Sometimes mutations will be beneficial .As they are written in the genetic material they will be transmitted to the next generation .All this was confirmed by the study of genetics and biology AFTER Darwin .Every step in biology has confirmed this mechanism Do you have any difficulty to understand this Arch ,if so please tell us .I can not find simpler words to explain this .If you deny this on a basis of religion alone ,just tell ,I will end my efforts as I have no ability to explain colours to a blind man .I have better things to do .I prefer to debate science with people who reply with science if they disagree.Obviously you do not belong here .You only serve as an easy way of practicing rethorics.Is there nobody better qualified than this ignorant and credulous missionary to oppose ? There must be somebody having at least reasonable arguments to oppose evolution .
Or all these bible freaks from the same poor caliber ?

Arch thinks the world is about 12,000 years old, Rene.

Once you have that type of psychosis ingrained in your brain it is hard to imagine any concept which takes millions of years.

Easier to just pretend that there is some invisible old man up in the clouds who is controlling things.

failing to understand that evolution is the result of changes happening randomly is certainly no argument against it

i don't misunederstand evolution or those who believe i nit at all. the fundamental, fatal flaw in the theory is that it is what people want it to be and not what it is supposed to be.

the way evolutionary theory is designed makes it possible for any and all thoughts other than creation to be accepted, no matter how unproveable or stupid it is. case in point:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060721/ ... on[/quote]