As a side note, if you'd said something to me like, "I'd like to know what you make of some of the specific examples on Yahya's site, which you don't seem to be aware give information as well as pictures. Then tell me what you think" -- I would have done so. If people here would just answer my questions, tell me what they'd like me to address, or simply express their own points of view (and correct me where I'm wrong) rather than telling me that I'm misrepresenting them, I think we'd understand each other better
Not only have I provided pictures and information straight from that website a number of times on this forum in various threads, but given the link attached and encouraged people to view the many others available. You have had repeated opportunities to view the MANY fossils available with a link provided for your convenience. Instead, you googled whatever negative press/mistakes you could possibly find in order to colour the entire website based upon some discovered fossil errors. This is not an honest, nor fair portrayal and does the website an injustice based upon the many and varied fine examples presented.
If the fossils confirmed evolution, the commentary of the website owner would be a contradiction in terms and the fossils would prove him wrong. Instead, the fossils themselves become their own evidence and in and of themselves, remain a threat to the theory of evolution. Why?
The fossils, despite the changes that have supposedly taken place appear to defy such changes we'd expect had such transitions really occured. Even time has not been the remedy here for the evolutionist. Whatever changes we are to believe happened, have still failed to show the transition from one kind to another. If you check the fossils and look up the ones you're interested in viewing e.g. horses, frogs, goats, snakes, crocodiles, whatever it is, you will find they exist then the same animals as they do now.
Mistaken "fish lures" in amber will not change the fact that most of the fossils are easily clear and recognisable. Nice try Linda!
You are saying, yes, that any species that exist today, which have changed significantly, must have done so "within existing genetic information."
Can you explain to me how existing genetic information changed mesonychids to a modern whale, or eohippus to a modern horse?
Have we observed any change to be significant enough to cause one kind of animal into another? Can you give me an example of an animal we have observed that this has or is happening to? Speculations on extinct species does not count as evidence, nor the painted scenarios that go with them. Nor is variation within kinds acceptable to use an explanation of the evolution of all life on earth.
We have already had past discussions on the whale and horse evolution a number of times here. You behave as though they were never discussed and you complain about repetition? Much has already been presented regarding this, including real life fossils of horses/ponies etc, which show they were STILL horses and ponies, despite the chart displays that evolutionists provide to the contrary. I encourage people to view the links you have given and compare this with the real life fossils I have provided on this forum and see which of these would be a more acceptable fossil presentation. They can view the link to the fossil website I've provided on this thread and look for themselves. I am not impressed with links to yet more animation, more charts, more scenarios. There were a few reality shots showing moths and birds and guess what....they're still moths and birds. I recall that finches were used as "evidence" for evolution, aptly and amusingly dealt with in this
video How many times must it be pointed out to you that variation/adaption does not mean that one kind of animal has become another. Even the vast periods of time have not made that a reality. Even selective breeding hasn't made this a reality, yet you insist it happened in spite of a lack of evidence.
You have also criticised ones lack of credentials such as Kent Hovind and the fossil museum site owner, yet Charles Darwin was an average theologian not known to be brillaint. Most emphatically he was NOT a trained scientist! Even Kent Hovind has a doctorate in education! And the fossil museum site owner? Doesn't rely on cartoons or charts as evidence, he presents real life fossils displaying incredible stasis despite the vast periods of time they have had to "evolve". The attempts to put down his website, his reputation and character are, I'd imagine is hardly an isolated tactic that we've seen on this forum.
DARWIN UNDER THE MICROSCOPE WHALES DESIGNED OR EVOLVED? If you're not interested in viewing the videos? That's up to you. I present them for those that are.
