Chris Hyland
Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote | | 2) I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time. I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table. |
This is the same argument Intelligent design supporters use, and is simply an argument from ignorance, why deosn't fly as proof in science. Many of the people who work with these 'machines' and help to show how they have evolved are engineers by training.
| Quote | | apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea |
Panspermia has nothing to do with intelligent aliens, it simply states living matter has been deposited on earth one or more times e.g. on meteorites.
| Quote | | 4) Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils. |
The fossil record does not look like what we expect if the foold were true, but it does fit in with what we would expect from what we understand from geology and evolution, and if these fossils were deposited over millions of years.
| Quote | | I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial. |
Mutations in bacteria and other pathogens confer resistance. Some humans have mutations which give them resistance to AIDS and other diseases, and others that generally make their immune system stronger. Other people have mutations that make their bones stronger.
| Quote | | I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional |
The link you gave doesn't seem to work. Firstly a loose definition of a transitional fossil is one that has some features of one species and some of another, it does not mean the direct desendent of one and the direct ancestor of another. I am not sure about the specific problems you have with the whales, but we have good reason to believe that our current idea of evolution is correct.Each of these fossils get less 'whale like' the further back we go, so the phylogenetic tree fits in with evolution. Constructing the phylogenetic tree when we just had some of the fossils told us where to look for the rest. Also, using the fossil skulls it was possible to reconstruct the acoustics of the ears of these creatures and see that the ears got progressively better at hearing underwater, which is what evolution would predict.
Also with Tiktaalik evolution told us exactly where to look to find the fossil based on where it would fit in the phylogeny. This is why evolution is the best scientific theory because it makes the best predictions. Creation science has made predictions, especially based on flood geology, but these have been shown to be wrong. The fossil record supports a gradual sedimentation, and features such as the grand canyon would look quite different if they were caused by the flood.
|
