Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Let's take a look...he wrote:

The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.

This is quite false, of course. He contradicted himself, yes. But as you now realize, the entire geological column exists in more places than mentioned. Which is pretty remarkable, when you realize how unlikely it is that there was more deposition than erosion in those areas over every geological period.

If your guy was right, it wouldn't exist anywhere. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong to say that the geological column exists only in geologists' charts.



No, it's a simple falsehood. What he wrote is false.

YECs tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory.
And now you've given us an excellent example of a strawman. In fact, the numerous transitional series were predicted by evolutionary theory long before they were discovered, confirming the theory. Even honest YECs admit this:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YEC Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Wise candidly admits he prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. But he's honest enough to admit that the fossil records is very good evidence for "macroevolutionary theory."



See above. You're a little confused.



Everyone is ignorant of something. This is just one of those things you don't know much about. As Wise points out, you really don't understand the fossil evidence.



Yep. You can observe it almost everywhere in living things. It seems that you've confused "evolution" with the agency of evolution (natural selection), and perhaps with the consequences of evolution (common descent). Perhaps we could clear that up if you told us what you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is. What do you think it is?



Notice that an honest and informed YEC admits that the hominid series is very good evidence for evolution. He knows what you don't.



Since it's directly observed to happen, the odds against it being true are 0.000. I'm guessing you're thinking instead of the origin of life, which most YECs conflate with evolutionary theory.



Since 93.5 percent of all internet statistics are just made up from imagination, let's see your calculations.

There's several things wrong with you guess:

1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.

Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
R Hardison
Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.


2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
LOL. So you continue to use fallacies. You lift a single sentence out a paragraph and then pretend it was all that was said. The meaning that I get out of that sentence, taken within it's context, is this: The geologic column, that geologists pretend is complete worldwide and reliably upholds the evolutionary theories, cannot be found as complete world wide. It fact, it is as the author says, it's missing in the vast majority of the earth's surface. That it is an accurate model of the entire earth's crust is an idea found only in geologist's diagrams. In real life it is missing components and, or actually inverted, in more than 99% of the earth's surface. but, since you can't controvert the author's statements of fact you want to nitpick the wording of one sentence and then claim he is lying and not to be believed. I've seen your attempts at obfuscation many times before. They just don't work

Your article on hemoglobin is highly misleading for it runs into the problem, immediately, of irreducible complexity. For hemoglobin to work reliably, or even at all, the information that produces the proteins has to come from dna, and that dna has to be perfectly formed for the organism to live, and to create the hemoglobin. Hemoglobin cannot exist without the dna information that tells the organism what proteins are needed and in what exact sequence. This was actually a very poor attempt at misdirection as it is very apparent that you can't deal with the odds involved in the production of, and functioning of, hemoglobin in the blood.

Evolution, as a whole, has that problem. DNA must exist complete before life forms can exist and reproduce themselves. And all forms of dna modification that happen by chance destroy dna information. There is no known addition of dna information is changes found in life forms. Let's take the instance that you evolutionists like to crow about and claim it supports evolution: that bacteria become immune to drugs. Oh, see they are modifying themselves and no longer can be killed by drugs. LOL. Yeah, they have been modified and no longer die from the drugs created to kill them, but was it from destruction of dna information or the addition of dna information? It is demonstrably from the destruction of dna information for the drugs are designed to attach to specific parts of the cellular structure and because the dna has been been partially destroyed the specific cellular structures for the drugs to attach to are no longer created. It's not an argument for evolution, but actually an argument against evolution. But evolutionists go ahead and make the claim anyway, knowing all the time it is a lie.

Your claim that evolution isn't about the beginnings of life is disingenous at it's very best, and a flat out lie otherwise.

Here's a link from evolution.berkley.edu on the origins of life. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...origsoflife_03 The title of the short article is "where did life originate?" Evolutionists pondering on where life originated and doing that under the overall title of Understanding Evolution.

https://www.universetoday.com/104336...id-life-begin/ Evolutionists pondering how evolution produced life.

https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-...igin-life.html Once again, evolutionists pondering how evolution brought life into existence.

https://science.nasa.gov/solar-syste...e-solar-system This is a link from NASA on the evolutionary beginnings of life.

One last thing before I forget it. I want you to show me the observation of one of the most foundational aspects of evolution: that of one species arising out of another one. Oh, I've seen theories addressing it, but zero fossil evidence has ever been found. Until you can provide that type of "observation" there is no real evidence for evolution. All "observation" of that type has been proven fraudulent. Another form of fraudulent "observation" is the geologic column which is missing, as a whole, in more than 99% of the earth's crust. And still a third piece of fraudulent "observation" is the circular reasoning that even scientists admit happens in their usage of the fossil record and evolutionary theory. These three legs are foundational to belief in evolution and all three legs are destroyed lack of legitimate scientic evidence.

Oh, and by the way, I am a YEC. I make no scientific arguments one way or the other for it. I take it by faith from the Bible. I take the Genesis account of creation as literal. So, I use no logical fallacies to support my beliefs for I plainly say it is an article of faith in the God I serve and trust with my life. I'm not like you who must point away from and try to obscure my faith in something which the odds say is so far from evolution being possible that it must be taken and believed in by faith. I don't have faith that can exist against the kind of odds that you evolutionists believe were overcome.