Hi Linda, thanks but I don't think any post is going to satisfy you to be honest. And I did indeed read the "mine quotes" as you call them. But I most definitely have not superceded Russ in providing information/links/resources.

Because the word evolution has actually been soiled by bias assumptions of our ancient origins/past, it has bad connotations attached to it. So when you use this word to describe the obvious (variation - micro evolution) to me there is a sense of deviousness involved, which is why it's not a term we like to use due to how it's been used to describe mere assumptions of our past.

Because the evolutionist believes in processes that take place over billions of years from single celled organisms, to the incredible complexity we see today. When you try and use the word evolution on the agreed variation observations, it is a clever way to fit that word in there and hopefully all the other connotations attached with it (single celled organsims, big bang, primordial soup etc) will hopefully be accepted as well. The more a person associates the word evolution with truth -variation, the more likely they'll be to assume evolution on a whole.

When you describe an observable fact like variation within a kind, human intervention in breeding to bring out desired traits and call it evolution, to me it's quite clever in a sense. Use the word to describe something true, to hook others into the rest that comes along with it.

All the stuff we've been saying and seeing all along is now having the word evolution applied to it.

Just because the science arena right now has evolution ruling, does not mean they are right about our origins, right about we're we going as a "species", or correct in their interpretations of the past based on fossil findings of the present.

Any fossils found, do not have a label attached to them. The evolutionist is the one who puts the label on them. There is quite a lot of manipulation here towards the layperson.

We can disagree fully on our beginnings, that I feel is most definitely down to faith because nobody here saw it or filmed it. And we obviously don't disagree on the obvious - micro evolution (variation), but again this is NOT one kind becoming something else. In fact, micro evolution is a contradicotry and unsatisfactory term. This is limited to shuffling or loss of genetic information NOT added genetic information that evolution requires.

It makes no sense when there are ancient fossils of animals and plants that look no different than they do today...The fossilised Koelruteria leaf was found in "Pliocene" depsoites at Willershausen, Germany. Fossil seed pods of this genus are also found in the USA in deposits allegedly 50 millions years old. Today this plant lives in its natural state only in China, Japan and Korea.... The fossil and the modern plant are one and the same, "after their kind". No evolution has taken place.

Quote
Scientists do not just dig up fossils and make guesses about them, which is what you seem to believe. The rock in which the fossil was found is dated, which gives an idea of when the organism died and places it within the geologic column, for which there are known series of dates. If the fossil itself is more recent than 40,000 years, it can be carbon dated. There are also many fossils existing already of different species, spectrums which usually include the species of the fossil itself, plus those from which it evolved, and species that in turn it gave rise to. Furthermore, these are layered in the fossil record so that you will see earlier species lower down and later species higher up, consistently, with no mixing. All of these puzzle pieces are compared with each other. Experts spend years studying the characteristics of each species and how these can be studied in fossils.


If they don't make guesses about them Linda, what are they making? They didn't dig it up with data attached. In regards to fossils? All we know is the fossils are there - we don't know their parents or offspring (if any) The rest is fiction, pure fantasy or guess work presented as fact.

Circular reasoning is totally unacceptable as an argument - e.g "The layers are dated by their index fossils and the fossils are dated by their surrounding layers" - is as silly as a dog chasing its tail - yet many people fall for it. Radiometric dating is not acceptable as a 'back-up' as it is less than 50% reiable having serious well-known flaws, concealed from the public by academics with an agenda that has little to do with truth! Flaws included total ignorance of conditions at start and during datings (nobody there!) Falsely assuming things were always the same!

There is no complete or near complete geological column anywhere except in text books! Layers form and sort rapidly by hydrologic sorting (lab proven). 85% of earth layers don't even have 3 layers in 'correct' geological order (ie.Cretaceous/Jurassic/Cambrian/Permaian/Carboniferous/Devonian/Silurian/Ordovian/Cambrian). It was a hoax perpetrated by Charles Lyell and perpetuated by evolutionists. At St Mt Helens in 1980, as I have mentioned before, there was, in a matter of hours, gouged out a rapidly softly stratified canyon 600' high! called "the little Grand Canyon' (witnessed and recorded on film) The world-wide energy resources (oil/coal/gas) were quickly formed from vast quantities of Flood-stripped vegetation being sealed in by up to mile-high self sorted sedimentary layers. These created the required conditions of pressure and self-generating heat (like compost?)

Here is the evolution belief - The Grand Canyon was formed by a little water (Coloradio River) over a lot of time (millions of years) N.B> The Grand Canyon, long regarded as a "showpiece" for evolution is now seen as a monument to a great catastophe by many.

Here is the creation belief - the grand canyon was formed by a lot of water (vast lake emptied through a burst spillway) over very little time! And based on the observable present with the "little grand Canyon" it makes perfect sence.

River details: Enter canyon at 2800' drops to 1800 over 270 miles. as the Canyon sides rise to 4000, how could the river erode up hill? Erosion absence in individual layers, shows all strata formed together. Delta absence but huge dirt removal shows widespread dispersal. Side anyons at both acute and obtuse angles, suggest huge 'forward' flows and raging 'back flows'! Oldest strata found on top suggests quick strata formation (as at Mt. St Helens) shoreline evidence on canyon top suggests a vast and ancient lake exploded through a spillway at tremendous speed.


Yu talk about archaeopteryx as being evidence for evolution? "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it's not. IT IS A BIRD, A PERCHING BIRD, and no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that" (Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds). Every single feature (e.g. wings, claws, beak, teeth) is found on existing or extinct birds.

Reptiles could never evolve into birds. It is genetically impossible. Reptiles have 4 legs. Birds have 2 wings and 2 legs! How will the reptile survive the supposed transitional stage when its fore-arms are half leg/half wing, when it can neither walk run nor fly? Insurmountable problems exclude evolution as follows:
1) The reptile and bird lungs are totally different
2) Modern birds are found in layers with or below dinosaur fossils.
3) Scales and feather are attached to the body differently and are genetically vastly different.
4) Birds have 4 chambered heart; most reptiles have 3.
5)reptiles lay leathery eggs unlike birds.
6)birds have hollow bones. Reptiles don't!
(NB there are dozens of other radical differences, e.g. tail, hip bones, reproduction etc, No fossil evidence exists for any transition from reptile to bird.

PS, I was the author of the bestiality comments Linda, nobody else. So I take your comments as personal. I did not mention it for any "deviant" reason.