Let's put it this way, Bex . . . Your idea of evolution seems to be that it says organisms must change drastically. It appears to rule out the possibility that some organisms may undergo little change ("stay at home") while others undergo profound change ("travel around the world").

Can you show please:
-- Why you think that this has to be the case? and,
-- A case of any evolutionary scientist saying that this has to be the case?

If you are unable to show that evolution has to occur at the same rapid rate for all species, then you need to concede that it can occur at different rates dependent on different variables, one notable one being change (or lack thereof) of environment.

Let's look at the coelacanth -- which, as you have seen, has indeed undergone evolutionary change. It has, however, changed little in comparison with the majority of other organisms. Look at its environment. Deep sea. It's pretty well sheltered from drastic climatic changes in the world up above, meteor strikes, volcanoes changing the atmospheric conditions, etc. Keeping this in mind, it would be surprising if the coelacanth had evolved rapidly -- there are no conditions pushing it to do so.

As I said earlier as well, "living fossils" are rare. Almost every organism has undergone evolution to some extent, and the majority have become extinct in the past. This is again not a surprise. How do you think any of this is somehow a falsification for evolution?

In response to another point: Can you find an evolutionary scientist who says that when a new species evolves, the parent species must necessarily die out -- that the two cannot co-exist? This question has already been put to you. There is maybe some confusion here about what the ToE actually is. I'll let RAZD clarify, as he has already started several threads on this subject.

BTW I also suggest that before you cast doubt on dating techniques -- I gave you three earlier -- that you find something out about them. It would be akin to me saying, "The earth goes around the sun? I don't believe it. I see the sun rise in the east and set in the west every day and you scientists could never prove to me otherwise. I'm not listening to you and your wishful thinking."

One last point. You said:
Quote
As I have said, the evolutionist continues to have the burden of proof to prove that their theory is a reality, they're teaching it in the science classroom. Your way out of this is an attempt to shift that burden onto the opposition when you are faced with pictures that defy any significant changes that one would expect from millions of years worth of evolution.


The ToE is a well-tested theory for the evidence we see in the fossil record, in geology, in genetics. If someone offers a competing idea, why should they not be compelled to offer some proof for it, and show why it fits the facts better than the existing theory? This is the scientific method. Scientists don't accept new theories because they sound good, and they don't reject existing theories because they just don't like them. The evidence is always what needs to be weighed.

Speaking of evidence, that's what you need in order to show that creationism is a viable competing theory. It does not win by default if evolution were somehow proved wrong. We would not then turn around and say, "OK, that must mean that the world was created 6000 years ago by a supernatural being, and everything that ever existed was created at the same time, in the form in which it is found now." There is no less of a burden of proof to show that this is what actually happened. Quite a few things contradict this, such as the sorting of the fossil record and the dating of the rocks in which fossils are found, which is one reason why we're having this discussion.