I agree, and the "ice age" is meteorologically acceptable in an understanding of deluge. The "catastrophe" that "froze" the mastodons froze them, not slowly over eons, but instantaneously, and so well they are preserved. We currently have no instruments that can accomplish with such a mass, what happened here, in seconds.



I was hoping you would recognize the form of argument I was using, so I didn't have to go into a whole lot of detail. Maybe, if I get the chance, I will present, on the other forum, the cosmological logical progressive argument that I am most familiar with.

I must also find my Gamov book too. He was good at demonstrating something had to be catastrophic, and then denying any catastrophe occurred.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

An environmental change such as an ice age may have the effect of destroying many species and producing large scale extinctions but some animals will survive and will adapt to the new circumstances.



It obviously depends on what the change is and how quick it is.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So, if evironmental changes destroy the balance and all the lessor animals die of, there should be no lessor animals at all, in fact none to carry on the process of evolution. Unlike point #1; this would show us that nothing should exist that is alive.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree, and the "ice age" is meteorologically acceptable in an understanding of deluge. The "catastrophe" that "froze" the mastodons froze them, not slowly over eons, but instantaneously, and so well they are preserved. We currently have no instruments that can accomplish with such a mass, what happened here, in seconds.



I was hoping you would recognize the form of argument I was using, so I didn't have to go into a whole lot of detail. Maybe, if I get the chance, I will present, on the other forum, the cosmological logical progressive argument that I am most familiar with.

I must also find my Gamov book too. He was good at demonstrating something had to be catastrophic, and then denying any catastrophe occurred.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

An environmental change such as an ice age may have the effect of destroying many species and producing large scale extinctions but some animals will survive and will adapt to the new circumstances.



It obviously depends on what the change is and how quick it is.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So, if evironmental changes destroy the balance and all the lessor animals die of, there should be no lessor animals at all, in fact none to carry on the process of evolution. Unlike point #1; this would show us that nothing should exist that is alive.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Each animal defeats the other animals in the same environmental niche. There are thousands of such niches.



Forgive me for being blunt but how can you criticise evolution when you fail to understand it in such a blatent way?



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Actually, I am trying to understand your statement:





Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.





Which seems self contradictory.
BUT, time order is not accurate (at least, this is the argument that the Evolutionists in the Biology forum gave me) as evidence for multiple starts and no "single line" biologically were the very things thrown at me by the biologists themselves. I realize this line could quickly get into genetics and quite possibly neuroanatomy, and etc. as evidence of a lack of time order in the lines.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Each animal defeats the other animals in the same environmental niche. There are thousands of such niches.



Forgive me for being blunt but how can you criticise evolution when you fail to understand it in such a blatent way?



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Hi Mike,



should say more complex in the YOUNGER ...



sorry



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Actually, I am trying to understand your statement:





Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.





Which seems self contradictory.
BUT, time order is not accurate (at least, this is the argument that the Evolutionists in the Biology forum gave me) as evidence for multiple starts and no "single line" biologically were the very things thrown at me by the biologists themselves. I realize this line could quickly get into genetics and quite possibly neuroanatomy, and etc. as evidence of a lack of time order in the lines.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Each animal defeats the other animals in the same environmental niche. There are thousands of such niches.



Forgive me for being blunt but how can you criticise evolution when you fail to understand it in such a blatent way?



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

ok, I thought one of them should have been simpler , anyway, my problem is two fold, I get some evolutionists saying "simple to complex" and others denying this. So, an argument on this point is hard to pin down.



Thanks. Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Hi Mike,



should say more complex in the YOUNGER ...



sorry



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Actually, I am trying to understand your statement:





Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.





Which seems self contradictory.
BUT, time order is not accurate (at least, this is the argument that the Evolutionists in the Biology forum gave me) as evidence for multiple starts and no "single line" biologically were the very things thrown at me by the biologists themselves. I realize this line could quickly get into genetics and quite possibly neuroanatomy, and etc. as evidence of a lack of time order in the lines.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Each animal defeats the other animals in the same environmental niche. There are thousands of such niches.



Forgive me for being blunt but how can you criticise evolution when you fail to understand it in such a blatent way?



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie