OldDoc Loc: New York

The number of transitional forms is enormous, and informative. For example, "Tiktalik" is a transitional form between fish and tetrapods, and was found by following the predictions of evolutionary theory. There are too many transitional forms to discuss all of them here. The evidence is overwhelming, unless you simply close your eyes and declare that there are no such forms in sight.

The putative loss of the sun's mass is dependent on two assumptions. First, is the assumption that any shrinkage would occur at a uniform rate, a concept known as "uniformalism", which is exactly the assumption that creationists lambaste scientists for using to assume that atomic decay occurs at a constant rate. Second, is the assumption that the sun is shrinking, which is based on an unreliable set of data published in 1980. Current (as opposed to 35 year old reports) indicate that the diameter of the sun is cyclical, and there is no evidence of true shrinking.

Many strata are not dated from fossil ages, but by absolute measures such as radiometric dating. No circular reasoning here.
This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
See my comment for item 4, above.
[/quote]

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

OldDoc-The number of transitional forms is enormous, and informative. For example, "Tiktalik" is a transitional form between fish and tetrapods, and was found by following the predictions of evolutionary theory. There are too many transitional forms to discuss all of them here. The evidence is overwhelming, unless you simply close your eyes and declare that there are no such forms in sight.
Quote:

Racman- To claim there's an enormous number of transitional forms is disingenuous and maybe even a down outright lie from the mainstream science community. There are no evidence of any transitional forms of a species evolving into another type of species. The Tikalik you mentioned is no evidence of anything but another of millions of species we have today and extinct in the past. This has been debunked years ago like many other assumed transitional forms. Tikalik was propped up as a transitional form till it was dethroned years later by embarrassment with the discovery of four legged fish foot prints dating 20 million year earlier than the Tikalik...sorry Tikalik...you are just another extinct fishie :). Evolutionists used to prop up the supposed 70 million year old coelacanth fish years ago as a strong transitional form and rubbed it in Creationist faces till one was caught years later in West Indian Ocean, more were caught later...what a conundrum for the evolutionists. The coelacanth has not changed in over 70 million years? I can provide you with many "living" fossils of species that were dated in the 300mya to 400mya that are still alive with us now and have not change at all. Where are ALL the transitional forms today that we should be seeing? there should be thousands if not millions of transitional forms. Living fossil species prove without a doubt the Darwinian evolution if false.


2) Sun losing mass size could not be billions of years old

You-The putative loss of the sun's mass is dependent on two assumptions. First, is the assumption that any shrinkage would occur at a uniform rate, a concept known as "uniformalism", which is exactly the assumption that creationists lambaste scientists for using to assume that atomic decay occurs at a constant rate. Second, is the assumption that the sun is shrinking, which is based on an unreliable set of data published in 1980. Current (as opposed to 35 year old reports) indicate that the diameter of the sun is cyclical, and there is no evidence of true shrinking.

Racman- to claim that there is no evidence the sun is shrinking and experiencing increase entropy is not even close to the truth, anyone with a elementary education knows that the sun is "shrinking". The sun is losing mass at about 1.534 x 10^13 kg mass each hour, proven fact and the loss is assumed or claimed to be constant because the sun is really not affected much by outside sources.
http://www.freechristianteaching.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=90#axzz3cjpsFfWI

3) Age of fossils vs age of layers- circular reasoning

You-Many strata are not dated from fossil ages, but by absolute measures such as radiometric dating. No circular reasoning here.

Rac- As I posted above and in my OP, radiometric dating is inaccurate and has been proven to be so in my original posts illustration pics.

Quote:
You- 4) First Law of Thermodynamics
This had nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the video, unless I missed it then please forgive me.

Racman- Nobody implied FLT had anything to do with the "theory" of evolution, it was talking about the origin of the universe as explained with the Big Bang that something came out of nothing...can't happen, something can not be created out of nothing. "The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed." If the universe can not be created out of nothing, how did it come to be out of nothing?


Quote:
5) Big Bang Theory
See my comment for item 4, above.-
[/quote]

Racman- see my comment in item 4 as well :)- energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed." If the universe can not be created out of nothing, how did it come to be out of nothing?

You forgot to comment on "The Conservation of Angular Momentum" and explain how can 2 planets spin backwards and 8 out of 91 known moon spin backwards if the universe started as a spinning dot? Why do Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions at the same time? Why do whole galaxies spin backwards?

If I made any obvious errors in this post please forgive me and feel free to correct me.

(Download)


(Download)

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racman- see my comment in item 4 as well :)- energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed." If the universe can not be created out of nothing, how did it come to be out of nothing?

You forgot to comment on "The Conservation of Angular Momentum" and explain how can 2 planets spin backwards and 8 out of 91 known moon spin backwards if the universe started as a spinning dot? Why do Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions at the same time?

If I made any obvious errors in this post please forgive me and feel free to correct me.[/quote]

So rac knows all the answers, a genius to be sure. Just rac crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE

James Shaw

Biased, not balanced. Superstition, not science. Rac, the wacko, attempts but once again to instill superstition into rational minds. Won't work Rac.

And, just how many new followers/believers/supporters did you get today Rac? You do both science and God a disservice with this nonsense.

James Shaw

I encourage all to go to the site posted by Rac and see the what is under the Comments Section, which is :

"I disabled comments on this video, because I'm tired of atheists trolling it. I assure you, you're not missing anything. All they say is that Hovind is "a liar" (which is funny because he lists all of his sources), dwell on the fact that he is currently in jail (yet, fail to comprehend that he is in jail on some trumped up, BS charges), and/or mock people for believing in God. Like I said, you're not missing out on anything. Just a bunch of people proliferating their own ignorance. (Some people really hate critical thinking)."

Like I say, biased, not balanced. Anyone who disallows feedback is a total crackpot, just like Rac who posted this nonsense. Rac is a wacko and is anti-science and anti-Christian!
____________
"Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist and tax protester. He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement and his ministry focuses on attempting to convince listeners to deny scientific theories including evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. Moreover, he has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organisations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Rac really gets to you doesn't he James. You know you can't win this little battle so you've apparently have decided that your next best option is to ridicule and defame. I guess if you call him a fool often enough you'll gain some of those followers you seem to be so concerned with. You do have a few in silver, Frank and Dirtpusher so you're making some headway.

James Shaw

How stupid of you to suggest that I am out to "win a battle." I do not consider myself in a "battle" (your words). And I do not ridicule and defame Rac's stupidity/nonsense. Rac ridicules and defames himself. Also, I do not team-up with others who speak out against Rac. We do not get together and discuss what is said on this forum to Rac, or any other. Silver, Frank, and Dirtpusher, are mature enough to speak their own minds.

Now, get this, Pepper, Rac does not "get to me." Plain and simple, anyone who attempts to deface reason, religion, and science is not getting what they deserve from me, but what they ask for.

You feel a need to defend Rac, along with defending his stupidity. That is your problem. I doubt that, if you considered Rac a non-believer (or atheist), you would be his side kick? Rac, like God, is a big boy, and does not need pip-squeak-mortals to come to his defense.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Living Fossils

Evolutionists explain that we do not observe evolution today because it happens gradually and painstakingly over millions of years. Unfortunately, this explanation is not supported by the fossil record. Here is just a very short list of the hundreds of remarkable examples of what evolutionists call “living fossils,” or species that have remained unchanged since their supposedly ancient appearance in the fossil record, and still live today:

Ants— today’s ants demonstrate a complete lack of change from those found in amber from the Jurassic (contemporaneous with the dinosaur)
Nautilus—the basic squid family has not “evolved” since it first appeared, complete with eyes, in the Cambrian explosion—the first level of evolution after single-celled organisms (along with numerous other species still existing from that era, like starfish, and jellyfish, and clams, and coral . . .)
Spider—appears complete 400 million years ago when things were supposedly just getting out of the water. Wonder what they caught in those fancy webs.
Dragonfly—and numerous plants and trees from the carboniferous period, 100 million years before dinosaurs
Frog—275 million years ago
Cockroach—250 million years ago
Horseshoe Crab—Jurassic
Shark—400 million years ago
Tuatara—lizard-like reptiles that live in New Zealand. They first appeared during the dinosaur age, but no fossil of them has ever been found younger than “80 million years” –clearly the fossil record is unreliable for accurately recording the span of an organism’s existence.
Coelacanth—appears in strata “200 million years” before dinosaurs, yet modern specimens show no evolution. Amazingly, according to evolutionists’ own interpretation, this fish was deemed extinct for hundreds of millions years based on their lack of appearance in the fossil record above that geologic age. This is one of dozens of species not traceable for millions of years of strata. Clearly this animal succeeded throughout this supposedly tremendous gap. Evolutionists view the fossil record completely through the interpretive lens of evolution for advocating what and when things have lived, no matter how unreliable this proves to be.
If such a distinct creature can live without leaving a trace for hundreds of millions of years, then what is the record reliable for? If it can’t testify to the lifespan of a species, how can it accurately record when species first appeared? Fossils, do tell a story, but they do not tell the whole story. Creationism completely explains such anomalies, since all the creatures were only buried in one catastrophic flood event. The preserved remnant are but a representation of the original diversity.
There are hundreds of examples of species, from bacteria to crocodiles (“140 million” years ago) that have not changed for supposedly millions of years from the fossil record to the present. Despite its abundant confirmation of stasis, the fossil record cannot offer any evidence of evolutionary development. It is as if each species came into being in an instant, fully formed. In reality, when we look at all the thousands of species of plants, animals, arthropods, and more, we must acknowledge that all these unique species would have been in a constant state of change in order to make these millions of micro-steps in all their different directions.
It is simply not biologically possible, or even logical, that the past was a state of constant unending flow of transitions which miraculously resulted not only in the species we still have, but the species already lost to extinction. It is unimaginable that all this happened for hundreds of millions of years in all these thousands of species, and not one true transition is recorded in the fossil record. How is it that the supposed turbulent past of constant change that we cannot witness, does not in any way resemble the present that we can observe. Moreover, the record itself provides evidence, species after species, of stability for “hundreds of millions of years,” up until the present.
The true facts, as presented by the fossil record, validate the Creation model to the complete exclusion of the theory of evolution. It demonstrates that the “Cambrian System” was instantly crowded with fully developed and familiar species when they first appear. Even though this is the first opportunity for evolution to show off, there are no fossils to demonstrate how dozens of new body types emerged from the single-celled organisms.
The change from invertebrates to vertebrates is just as mysterious. The fossils manage to clearly record the instantaneous wide variety of fish, but no developmental stages. The fossil record continues to point to stasis, and does not offer evidence of how a fish turned into such a variety of amphibians, straining our imaginations. All the way through the “rise” of mammals, birds, and humans, the abundant fossils faithfully preserve only the terminal, or final species, omitting the millions of transitional species.
All species are found utterly complete in every way when they are uncovered from the sand and mud and limestone that entombed them. We will never know how evolution could haphazardly produce such marvels as an eye, or wings, or flowers, or any complex feature because their fossils just appear again with no recorded developmental history in spite of all the suitable layers of sediments. All the uniqueness of life, from birds, to marsupials, and hundreds of unusual specialized traits, are captured in these rocks as if they just materialized, already fashioned, without any ancestry. In fact, a much greater variety, even giant forms, of species evidently lived in the past, attesting to the dominant value of extinction and entropy, not evolution.
Creationists are not surprised that the fossil record testifies against the gradual transitions of evolution, because Special Creation would leave a record of stasis in all species because they were created at the same time. These were the forms buried in one sudden cataclysm as a testimony of this flood, and left for our examination.
Clearly the world is winding down, not elaborating. According to the fossil record, there are less species now than ever, and species have not grown more complex. Nothing in the fossil record substantiates evolution. That scientists continue to imply that there is solid evidence in the rocks is deceptive to both the public, and themselves. The fossil record offers no more evidentiary basis for evolution than a cemetery does. In fact, evolution has no more basis in reality than that Zeus sits atop Mt. Olympus with his band of gods.
Ronald R. West wrote, and many evolutionists concur, in the May, 1968 edition of Compass:

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.

Scientists see evolution in the fossils because the fossils are essential to evolution.

http://www.truesciencefacts.com/page5.html#_Toc236391188

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Hey rac, how about watching this where your so called facts are completely destroyed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Pip-squeak? That's real brave of you James calling people you've never met names from behind a keyboard. That fits into the definition of internet bullying. And yes Rac does get to you and so do I that's why you resort to your condescending retorts and name calling. I of course don't know this for a fact but my guess is that if we were to meet in person your tone would change considerably.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Oh, the insanity of it all.

anotherview Loc: California

Did he make them while in his prison cell?

See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

James Shaw

Yes, Rac, and the evolutionists are correct, and the fossil record overwhelmingly supports them. Why did you leave out so many fossils Rac? Please see the one below.

Rac attempts, but once again, to mislead others about evolution, and science, and reason, and religion. He is a real clown, has no substantial numbers of followers or believers and does disservice to science, reason, and religion.

How many new followers today Rac?

Acheoptryx, a dinosaur with feathers

James Shaw

My, my, Pepper, don't you include yourself with us pip-squeak sinning mortals? Why do you think I would change my tone if we were "in person."

Just go back and review the "name calling" (internet bullying) that you have done with me alone, and Rac's too, who easily calls others liars.

A saint is what you ain't, Pepper. You and Rac are lost in a sea of ignorance with knowledge all around you, and yet you do nothing about it. God does not seem to what to help you with it either. I guess that is what you call "free will."

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

What does the information have anything to do with the spokesman?? you can't refute the information so you attack the person sounds about right for you atheist