Hi RAZD,

Quote
Even when species appear unchanged this does not mean that evolution has not occurred -- that these species were not also descended from common ancestors to other species that have changed visibly while they remain well suited to a stable niche.


So the fact is, though they "appear" unchanged, they must have evolved anyway..... I think it's time to throw ones brain out the window and shut the eyes, irrespective of the visible evidence, in favour of "take my word for it, it happened anyway" ...(I refer back to CTD's animation above, as this would be a great time to repost it).

So the pictures really don't tell us anything right? They don't disprove evolution according to you and Linear.... even though they show no signs of change.... evolution occured anyway...therefore....perhaps these fossils are fooling us all. They just "appear" unchanged.....or they evolved in a way, and in a time where it was somehow missed, even with all the vast amounts of time and death the evolution believes has occured over millions of years. Conveniently any process of evolution had it's own hidden, quiet way of doing things undetected and failed to leave any visible proof in those particular fossils......BUT, it happened. These guys just missed the boat I guess, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

This is unbelieveable (literally). Apart from imagination, speculation and "take my word for it, it happened anyway" One is supposed to toss aside these ancient fossil pictures, (real visible leftovers from our past that we are lucky to have) in favour of the unseen assumed past that the evolution has drawn up for us regardless. Why? because the evolutionist said it must have been so, therefore it is so. Evolution was so slow that we didn't really observe it happening - Or so fast we missed it. Or it happened in spurts/jumps, slow, then sudden, then slow, then sudden, and so clever, that the fossils in the pictures somehow escaped this process or at least give the "appearance" of escaping it. One will notice that they will adjust their theory according to the circumstances and if they are faced with pictures that defy the changes expected over these vast periods of time, (whether slow, or fast, or in spurts), they'll still claim evolution and say that the pictures do not disprove it. Only in THEIR mind it doesn't, because they're already convinced it occured regardless. But anybody else that has escaped the brain washing, can probably see these fossils certainly do not show any sign that evolution has affected them or taken place at all.

Apart from satisfying the evolution imagination and keeping the faith under all circumstances, how much more imagination and wishful thinking does the evolutionist require to hold onto their theory, even to the point of trying to explain why the fossils have shown no change and then expecting us to buy it? It's incredible watch them do it. They'll pull out all stops.

Quote
Evolution does not HAVE to happen, nor does it HAVE to affect all species in any major way -- species that are in a stable niche can - and do - remain virtually unchanged (certainly unchanged enough for the average person to see little difference). The blue-green algae that lives today is similar to the fossils that are found in rocks 3.5 billion years old, the oldest known fossils.


Evolution does not have to happen. That's about as close to saying "evolution may not have happened", which is exactly the point. What an admission. The alternative to evolution? Spontaneous appearance? Or did evolution just happen to pick and choose at will and somehow it missed the fossils in the pictures I provided (or at least it gave the appearance of missing them) but probably affected everything else (we just happened to miss the ones that it affected). Certainly the fossils have defied the changes that we would have expected after such long periods of time.... so you gotta find a way around it and this is the best you can come up with.

Quote
And what you have failed to show is that there is any limitation to adaptation. For creationists to claim that there is only "adaptation" within "kinds" you need to demonstrate that there is some barrier to the amount of variation that can occur.


What you have failed to show in any of your post here is photographic evidence to the contrary. So far, we have not seen any sign that any creature is becoming something else, then or now! And certainly, if the fossil pictures are anything to go by, it wasn't showing any change in them millions of years ago either. Tigers, goats, plants, fish, sealife, insects etc etc. One wonders what else you have to go on? Charts, words, links....do you think you can start to come up with solid proof?

I should be bowled over by the impressive verbiage, but I guess I'm one of those people that prefer straight and simple evidence that doesn't require it as much. And unless you can prove to me that evolution happened that matches the visible proof I have given that it hasn't, (at least not in the fossils I've provided), then I hardly see that you have much left to argue about. There is simpy no convincing the unconvincable, even with photos of ancient fossils. I imagine I'll simply be wasting more of my time going in circles over this with the obviously brain washed.