Religion of Evolution

"Your point that "you have no such excuse" when encountering those same "inconvenient facts" is also -- MY POINT! You can't hide behind your atheist evolutionist bretheren taking THEIR same out when confronted by those inconvenient facts! They HAVE their excuse - what is yours??!! You certainly can't use theirs!"

Who are you quoting as saying "you have no such excuse?"

Anyhow, my point exactly. There are some people who are so desperate to deny God that they will look to any means necessary if that means having to invent a philosophy from legitimate science to do so. You seem to have trouble differentiating between the facts in the case and those that try and twinst and turn those facts to support opinions on both sides.

But I have no such problem. I am not trying to avoid submission to God or to rationalize a denial of God. I can take an unbiased appraisal of the facts.

Beyond that, I even came into this debate with a belief in YE and a strong distrust of OE.

But my mind was changed. Obviously it was not because of biases towards old earth that I carried into it. Obviously it was not because of some desire to deny God or to excuse behaving as I wish.

No the facts over came my predjudice and changed my mind. Despite the roadblocks to that course.

"Failed revisionism on your part shown here again."

Nope. You are the one attempting to revise history but failing.

It started with the entropy stuff. You quote people you find to be experts but excise the parts of their statement where they tell you why entropy is not a problem. This is a dishonest misrepresentation of their position. You fail to explain what entropy is supposed to prevent instead giving vague statements about "MASSIVE" decreases in entropy. You fail to acknowledge that we see decreases in entropy happening every day around us. And you fail to acknowledge, dispite many patient and detailed posts, that what you are talking about is not even thermodynamic entropy.

You then moved on to the chiral problem. You assert that racemized mixtures say that it could not have happened. I give you several references that show that common materials can act as catalysts that favor one stereoisomer. I give you references that show that common materials can act as catalysts and lead to optically pure chains, not the racemized mixtures you assert. You never show problems with these references. YOu do not even admit they exist. You just continue to assert the same things over and over.

Then you added Archaeopteryx to the mix. You claim it is just a "true bird." SO how can it be an intermediate. You cite a conference from the early 80's and two specific authors. So I show you that the authors in question present information both at the conference and in other forums that show that they think it was a transitional. So you keep making the assertion but drop the names. So I ask you to support your assertion. You ignore the request. So I tell you that the name of the preceedings for the conference was The Beginnings of the Birds. This shows that they were talking about the evolution of birds at the conference and the place of archy in this process. YOu pretend that that never happened. SO I went Googling and came up with the titles of as many papers at the conference as I could come up with. I present this in a list to you. They titles all show that they were discussing the evolution of birds and archy's place. You ignore this, too. I keep presenting information that shows that your assertion is wrong and asking you to give some evidence to support your assertion. YOu ignore the requests and ignore the evidence and continue to assert that they said that it was merely a bird. Gup lately has been charging people with a lack of intellectual honesty. You actions on this subject take the intellectual honesty cake.

So then you add the horse series to the mix. The facts are these. Early on, biologists thought that evolution was slow and steady going from A to B to C. When they started finding horse fossils, they constructed a series that matched this. Well as more fossils came in, they found that the series actual had a number of branches and that it was slow at times and then there would be rapid change and that sometimes things would change in one direction and then the other. IOW, it was bushy and jerky instead of smooth and steady. And they wrote papers on this where they said that the smooth series was wrong and that additional information had yielded better and more accurate data. Imagine that, learning as you research a topic. What a concept. Some people think you cannot be right if you do not have the complete story BEFORE you begin researching it. So you take these worthwhile papers and hack them down and change their meaning until it SOUNDS like they are saying that the whole series is fraudulent and does not exist. When the truth is pointed out to you and the context added to the quotes, you conveniently ignore the facts, can't let that get in your way, and continue to assert the same old same old.

"Have you forgotten about all the times (as in the above case) that you resort to this same mind numbing "Evolutionists are STILL evolutionists so the inconvenient facts must be solvable!" response??"

I am sorry you find it "mind numbing" for me to continue to point out that you are quoting these guys in a manner in which you try and make them say things with which they would not agree. You may not like it, but I am sure others find it quite enlightening that you will lie about what they said after the truth has been pointed out to you.

I am still waiting for you to support your assertions on the findings of the archy conference. I feel rather safe in predicting that such support will never come but also that you will continue to make the assertion dispite the evidence to the contrary and lack of any supporting evidence.

 

It's the answered questions that can totally change
or invalidate a theory.

 

Bob said

As I said - your blinders-on approach to inconvenient facts is mind numbing.

This is like the case of Republicans quoting John Kerry on a flip-flop and Kerry complaining that he does not like them quoting him like that and that he does not agree with them AND that he certainly has no intention of becoming Republican!

Well "no duh"! as they say.

The devastating point "remains" however IN SPITE of the fact that Kerry hates it that Republicans have found some telling confessions in Kerry's "own words".

I am doing the same thing here - and the atheists are dutifully complaining that they hate having Christians quote them as they make some frank confessions about the gaffs and flaws of evolutionism. Their response is "invariably" -- WE STILL believe in evolutionISM!! So don't pretend like we don't!.

And "obviously" NOBODY is claiming they don't believe in evolutionism. Neither is anyone saying that Kerry is working for the Republicans.

But alas - these are "the games" that the other side uses to "obfuscate points" and "pretend" that a glaring confession is not "usuable".

But in such compromised cases what else can we expect of them?

Oddly enough - you have failed to do it - even once.

Yet you "claim" success where you only demonstrate failure.

Why is that?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Psssstttt...hey there folks!
I'm gonna barge in here with an attempt to appeal to the emotions of evolutionists. For the rest of you, it will still be a nice little post of mine to read.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/44/496.html
Gina

 

Bob said -- "Your point that "you have no such excuse" when encountering those same "inconvenient facts" is also -- MY POINT!

You can't hide behind your atheist evolutionist bretheren taking THEIR same out when confronted by those inconvenient facts! They HAVE their excuse - what is yours??!! You certainly can't use theirs!"

Wrong "again".

(I guess I already used the term "mind numbing" so I won't use it here again.)

My point above is that when atheist EVOLUTIONISTS admit we ARE seeing INCREASED entropy in the local systems INSTEAD of the MUCH NEEDED decrease that evolutionISM needs - we EXPECT them to STILL cling to evolutionism - why?

Hmmm -- now let's think about that one... hmmm -- why would the atheist CLING to evolutionism EVEN when he admits that GOOD SCIENCE shows a CONTRADICTORY fact?? hmmmmm.. that is a hard one...

Lets see... atheist and evolution vs SCIENCE and FACT, hmmm evolution-atheist. I HAVE IT!! He has "No Other Choice"!!

Now having solved that difficult puzzle explaining the behavior of the atheist -- what explains the behavior of the Christian evolutionist when confronted by that SAME science FACT about "What the 2nd LAW is ALL about" as HE looks at those SAME local systems??!

And as I said - I think I have the answer but I have already used it in a previous post.


BTW - it is "pretty obvious" from your response to my examples of the blunders/gaffs/flaws in evolutionism that WHENEVER that mythical time was that you actually believed the Word of God in ITS description of origins - you were not THEN aware of these same blunders in evolutionism.

Hence - the part of the this debate that I find useful for anyone who is "really" at risk of crossing over to the path you chose without first knowing some of these details.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Gina -- nice post. I love that song.

In Romans 1 God says that even non-Christian atheists are being convicted and confronted with truth "By the Things GOD HAS MADE" - and the invisible attributes of God are made KNOWN to them "THROUGH the THINGS God has MADE".

But what if they are stuck saying "yes but GOD MADE nothing at all!". In fact what if they are saying as does Dawkings "Evolutionism EXPLAINS EVERYTHING - starting from NOTHING".

But EVEN in this - Dawkings has a witness because HE confesses that HE knows that the statement HE is making - is 180 degrees in opposition to what God teaches in His Word! Dawkings - living the darkness that he is in - even there KNOWS that God IS claiming TO HAVE MADE IT ALL directly - by His own HAND - HE "Spoke and it WAS He commanded and it stood fast"!

Dawkings KNOWS this is directly contradicting his own atheist beliefs and he even admits it in writing - publishing it to the world.

Sure enough - as Romans 1 predicts - HE KNOWS!!

In Christ,

Bob

[ August 24, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

UTEOTW's failed revisionism is shown even now as he clings to evolutionism "inspite of the inconvenient fact" that INSTEAD of just quoting Christian Creationist sources - I SHOW the flaw in HIS evolutionist "stories" using EVOLUTIONIST sources - not CREATIONIST!!

I SHOW that EVEN the atheist evolution Asimov admits that we SEE INCREASED entropy in the LOCAL system instead of evolutionism's much needed DECREASE!

How devastating is that ?!!!

But even WORSE for our friendly local evolutionists - Asimov says that this finding in the LOCAL system IS what the Law of Entropy is ALL about!

With that - The nail is slammed home into that coffin!

But is THAT shattering fact of GOOD SCIENCE enough to shake a GOOD atheist like Asimov from his BELIEF in evolutionism?? I should say NOT!

And Asimov is quick to point out his GREAT HOPE that SINCE the sun "is shining" and he gets a big increase in entropy there - MAYBE this is sufficient to expect that ONE DAY in the unspecified future - when he LOOKS at the LOCAL system he will see the MUCH needed DECREASE in entropy instead of the plain-old every-day dependable INCREASE in entropy in that local system - the INCREASE that "the 2nd law is ALL ABOUT"!

So YES - Asimov is QUICK to prop up evolutionism IN THE FACE of the inconvenient fact his observation in GOOD science has exposed.

He clings to his evolutionism "anyway" as a good atheist would be expected to do!

He even finds a "good story" to wrap around it - hoping the reader will "soon forget" the obvious implications of HIS OWN confession that in the LOCAL system we ARE observing - reliable, repeatable, everyday INCREASE in entropy!

Poor Asimov - he does not ABOLISH his problem he merely holds out "a story" with HOPE that his problem might one day go away. But as I said as an atheist he has NO other choice .

Question. What would a Christian EVOLUTIONIST do with that twig of hope IN THE FACE of the everyday EVIDENCE that Asimov gave that SHOWS local INCREASE in entropy??

Why obviously - HE TOO would CLING to evolutionism anyway!

And notice. When he "clings to his story anyway" - he "pretends" it is "dishonest" to NOTICE the BLUNDER wherein he has fallen.

(This reminds me of that phrase I already used before).

But of course UTEOTW has "another decoy" up his sleeve. A decoy he has used time after time with Asimov.

This one comes in the form of "write out a math equation showing how an increase in unnusuable energy REALLY does account for the EVERYDAY results that Asimov NOTES in the DECAY and disorder being driven into the local systems".

This is a kind of "give us math to prove the ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST's inconvenient observation or we wont believe Creation" argument.

UTEOTW even goes so far as to attack Asimov as HE claims that we NEED "MASSIVE DECREASE" in entropy in the local system to get molecule to brain evolutionISM.

UTEOTW says "Prove IT Asimov!" HE says PROVE we need a DECREASE for evolutionism! What part of evolutionism WOULD NOT happen if we did NOT get the MUCH needed DECREASE that YOU (Asimov) claim we need in evolutionism?

A shinging example on UTEOTW's part of "clinging to his story in spite of the inconvenient facts".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nice post, Gina. I read it earlier, and enjoyed all but one small section.

It is disheartening that you don't realize that people who disagree with you on the mechanics of creation are still capable of enjoying its grandeur and praising our Creator for it. I would even argue that we have more reason to do so, since discoveries over the last few hundred years have shown that the universe and our world specifically is far more incredible than earlier peoples thought.

You probably know a bit about the electromagnetic force, but does that mean you can't appreciate God's awesome power in a lightning storm? According to the book of Job (in the speeches of Elihu and God himself), lightning comes from the hand of God. I don't think it's necessary to choose between accepting the Bible or accepting the natural explanations of lightning. Our God made everything, things natural as well as things supernatural, so providing a natural explanation for how something works does not write God out of the picture (unless one holds to a god-of-the-gaps, in which case "God" shrinks with every discovery). If you can still see the power of God behind thunder and lightning even though you accept some human ideas on how lightning naturally forms, then you should also be able to see how others use the same principle to give God all the glory for the immense variety of life on our planet while at the same time accepting natural evidence for how life speciates.

On this we are in complete agreement. One day things will be made new, and until then it's part of our responsibility as stewards of creation to care for the world as best we can.

[ August 24, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Atheist evolutionists looking at nature "through the lense of evolutionism" declare "God is an unnecessary adjunct BECAUSE evolutionism EXPLAINS EVERYTHING starting from nothing ... climbing mount improbable"!

When faced with this "inconvenient fact" we might expect evolutionists here to go running off hands over their eyes saying - "type-no more to us about what evolutionists claim for evolutionism!"

However lets be objective and rational for a moment. WHY is it that the religion of evolutionism appeals to atheist evolutionists over Christianity's Creationism??

Lets examine the reasons carefully.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

That was a good post Gina.

Though I disagree with you on the details of how all this came to be, I agree on God as ultimately being responsible. My views on origins in no way takes away from my wonder of God's creation. You post reminds me of the awe I felt in seeing the Tetons for the first time last year. I think I even mentioned it in a post around here somewhere. I had been skiing Grand Targhee all week at it had lived up to its billing as Grand Foggy. And then the very last day, the clouds broke and the sun came out. I went to the top of the mountain hoping to catch a glimpse of the cathedral group in the distance. I had not realized that they were only a few miles away. Cresting the ridge and seeing them for the first time nearly took my breath away in awe of God's creation. Being at nearly 10000 feet may not have helped. But I am constantly in awe of such things as I travel. I had similar feelings at Big Sur a year year ago. I am expecting the same thing next month in Yellowstone.

For me, the animals that stir my soul are the large cats. Such regal and powerful creatures. Not quite the juxtapostion of the slug and the redwood. (I so want to see the sequoyia variety of redwood.) But, again, for me it takes nothing away that I do not see them as getting here in quite the same way as you. I still feel that same awe, that same appreciation.

 

"Oddly enough - you have failed to do it - even once."

Obviously I have or else you would give us some data from the archy conference to prove your assertion that they thought it was only a bird with no ties to the reptiles at all. I have shown that statement to be false through the work of the two authors you cited, through a long list of papers presented at the conference, and through even the title of the proceedings. If this claim were not demonstratably false, you would have corrected me by now. Instead you ignore the facts and continue to assert the flase claim.

More on this shortly.

 

"Oddly enough - you have failed to do it - even once."

Ok, Bob, much of your last series of posts boils down to you saying that there is nothing wrong with the way you quote scientists and that I have never shown in a single case that you did not quote them honestly. I guess it is time to go back to the archives and see.

You gave us the following quote.

Makes it sound like there is no horse series, doesn't it.

But then I gave the full quote.

Do you not find it queer that in a statement you claim says that the horse did not evolve (PERIOD) that the author would go through discussing trends in the evolution of the horse?

As as been pointed out to you several times, Simpson was not saying that there was a problem with the horse sequence. He was arguing against an outdated idea call orthogenesis. This simply said that evolution proceeded in a straight line. A evolves directly to B without any side branches or intermediates. He was attempting to show that this idea was wrong by showing how jerky the horse series was. It was "uniform, continuous transformation" that he was arguing against.

What was happening here was that early on, orthogenesis was how scientists thought evolution happened. So as the first horse fossils were found, they were placed into a series consistent with this. But as more fossils were found, the picture changed. This goes for all fossils and for the horse in particular. There was a reconition that the quaint idea of slow and steady was wrong as they found series after series where this did not happen but instead found bushy, jerky trees. Specifically, this was happening with the horse as the fossils made an ever increasing detailed body of work. SO papers were written pointing out htat the slow and steady model was found to be wrong as more data came in. The additional data had cemented the horse series but also had changed it.

No sense dragging this out rehashing stuff that has already been discussed ad nausem. The two given examples should suffice to show that I have shown your quotes to be false. If anyone wishes to see more, go start reading here ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163 ) to see an example of several more out of context quotes.

 

"I am doing the same thing here - and the atheists are dutifully complaining that they hate having Christians quote them as they make some frank confessions about the gaffs and flaws of evolutionism. Their response is "invariably" -- WE STILL believe in evolutionISM!! So don't pretend like we don't!."

It is the manner of the quoting that is disliked. The quoting is not done in a manner that accurately reflects their statement. What you do is the same as if an atheist were to quote Psalm 53:1 as "There is no God." According to your logic, it is not a valid response to go back and put in the words around the quoted bit to show that the statement is out of context. So just how would you respond to someone quoting the Bible in that manner? This could be very instructive on how to show your false claims in a manner acceptable to you.

And there is not "pretend" to it. As Gould put it "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Or from Eldredge, another person you misquoted "No, horse evolution was not in the straight-line, gradualistic mode. But to state or imply that the horse evolution exhibit was somehow arranged to support an evolutionary story - to imply that the old museum curators deliberately misled the public by arranging the order of these horse fossils as they saw fit - is a damn lie."

I do not think either of those pulled any punches in their opinion of being misquoted. And who should know better than the author what was intended.

[ August 25, 2004, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

#1. Atheist evolutionists - like Christian Creationists admit "the obvious" - which is that the origins "account" God gives in Gen 1-2:3 is NOT evolutionism - not even remotely and will never be used by any honest evolutionist as "the way to teach evolutionISM to ANYONE!".

#2. Atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkings see "clearly" that the CLAIMS OF EVOLUTIONISM are expansive to the point of "explaining all of life" on earth and the origins for HOW each living species came to be. Atheists SEE that at NO POINT in each of the species developed does evolution claim "AND THEN GOD said LET US..." - so for an Atheist looking for a "non-God" explanation Evolutionism FITS The bill!

#3. The Bible is a "house of Cards" - if you gut the Creator's own account for mankind and HIS role in creating us - then the fall of man, the sin problem, and even the Gospel itself collapses. Gospel writers themselves appeal to the VERY DETAILS in the creation account that evolutionists oppose - as does the very 10 commandment moral LAW of God.

Often we find Christian evolutionists trying to "marry these opposing models together" by watering down the Word of God and claiming that the junk science "stories" of evolutionism "justify Bible changes".

They should not be "Surprised" then to find that BOTH Atheist evolutionists and Bible-believing Creator-creation-account-trusting Christians would see the error in such a course.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

So you are not going to justify your claims about the archy conference?

 

"#1. Atheist evolutionists - like Christian Creationists admit "the obvious" - which is that the origins "account" God gives in Gen 1-2:3 is NOT evolutionism - not even remotely and will never be used by any honest evolutionist as "the way to teach evolutionISM to ANYONE!"."

Yes, you both have agendas for trying to support your claims. Strange bedfellows you make.

"#2. Atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkings see "clearly" that the CLAIMS OF EVOLUTIONISM are expansive to the point of "explaining all of life" on earth and the origins for HOW each living species came to be."

Funny then that you would quote as an expert someone who disagrees with you. You do quote him as an expert? He does say that in his professional opinion that there are no steps along the way the are a problem? This does seem at odds with your claims on various subjects claiming problems for evolution.

"#3. The Bible is a "house of Cards" - if you gut the Creator's own account for mankind and HIS role in creating us - then the fall of man, the sin problem, and even the Gospel itself collapses."

I am sorry you see the Bible as so weak as to collapse as a house of cards would if part of your interpretation of it were proven wrong. I have enough faith in God that I do not have such a problem.

 

Indeed. They hate having their frank confession about the blunders, gaffs, flaws and gaps in the mythical stories of evolutionism - exposed to groups that are not drinking the evolution-at-all-costs atheist koolaide. Can you blame them?

I certainly don't.

If you HAVE such a quote from me - "show it".

Continually griping about mythical 'dishonest' quotes is silly.

How can you expect to ever establish a point using such tactics?

#1. This is not a quote from me - nor Gould responding to my use of a quote from him.

#2. This does NOT stop thinking, objective, Christians from quoting Gould EVEN if he does not like the fact that they are not drinking evolutionism's koolaide.

#3. OTHER evolutionists HAVE been arguing for TRANSITIONALS at the species level - GOULD was one of the first to be publically accepted who ADMITTED the SAME thing the Creationists were claiming -- that we HAVE no smooth line of transitionals between species. HE hates it that HE is Making THEIR POINT. He seeks to obfuscate his predicament (as do you) by saying "YES but I am STILL an evolutionist who DOES believe in transition at SOME level just not at the one that all evolutionists HAVE BEEN CLAIMING".

As much as that kind of response satisfies the koolaide drinkers of evolutionism - the "point remains" that Gould made a significant CONFESSION about transitionals NOT seen at the VERY levels that evolutionists had been claiming to see smooth transition between species. (See the horse series for an embarrassing example of such a claim BY evolutionists - that NOW admit it to be contrived).

-----------------------

The MOST PERFECT example now follows.

Obviously not. They rely heavily in on their pagan, unchristian methods to express themselves and your use of them is exemplary for your cause.

I applaud your willingness to expose evolutionism in this way.

Eldridge simply "obfuscates" the problem he has with the horse series by claiming that the museum curators are not demonic liars setting out to mislead the world. (As if such misdirection and obfuscation actually SOLVES the poroblem he has or would be a BELIEVABLE solution to any thinking individual!).

So -- again -- the POINT REMAINS! The curators DID BELIEVE evolutionism's "story" IN SPITE of the "inconvenient fact" that what they were dutifully and faithfully portraying as a SMOOTH sequence with REAL bones lined up as "expected" in their "stories" turns out - to have been based on bad science, bad assumptions. As true devotees to the myths of evolutionism they were giving it their best and most honest koolaide-drinking effort to SHOW to the world the beauty and accuracy of the stories of evolutionism. NO doubt!

But their being misquided deluded devotees - bending science in the "normal" evolutionist way - DOES not "solve their problem" when the bad science is "exposed to the light of day" and they have to confess it was in error.

Point remains. And YOUR quote (in every aspect of its language) fully displays the contrast between objective fact - vs evolutionism's devotees caught in a gaff, a blunder a flaw - and trying to "cover".

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Indeed. They hate having their frank confession about the blunders, gaffs, flaws and gaps in the mythical stories of evolutionism - exposed to groups that are not drinking the evolution-at-all-costs atheist koolaide. Can you blame them?"

No they hate havingtheir legitimate scientific work hijacked by hacks who cut out all of the contextual information and make it appear as if they are saying something they did not say. Just as was done with the Simpson quote, for example. He says that the horse did not evolve in a s mooth sequence that instead it was jerky. You just cut off the rest of that and make it appear that he said that the horse series does not exist. That could not be further from the truth.

"If you HAVE such a quote from me - "show it"."

Who are you quoting as saying "show it?"

I have shown it. Look just above at the Simpson quote you gave. You said that he said that the horse sequence "never happened in nature.” The truth was that he said the outdated, smooth, continuous sequence never happened. Huge difference.

"Continually griping about mythical 'dishonest' quotes is silly."

Nothing "mythical" about it when I place the context around them and they mean something different.

"How can you expect to ever establish a point using such tactics?"

I think that I successfully did so for about 20 pages on the other thread. Or would you like to respond to some of my claims about the dishonesty of the YEC leaders. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/15.html#000224

"#1. This is not a quote from me - nor Gould responding to my use of a quote from him."

This is a quote from Gould responding to just this sort of quoting by YEers. You yourself have quoted Gould in such a manner, so the quote is fair game.

"#3. OTHER evolutionists HAVE been arguing for TRANSITIONALS at the species level - GOULD was one of the first to be publically accepted who ADMITTED the SAME thing the Creationists were claiming -- that we HAVE no smooth line of transitionals between species. "

You misunderstand. Again.

Gould is not saying that there are not transitionals at the species level. He is saying they are rare. Here is one example of a transition with a species. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html What he is saying is that there are many more examples of transisitions between higher levels because they are more examples invoved and therefore we are more likely to get a few examples along the way.

Now this is just the opposite from what the YEer would say. There should be NO transitions among the higher groups. They are all created "kinds." But we have abundant evidence for this. YEers say that our species (well some do, others say all species are created kinds. They cannot make up their mind.) all evolved from the master kinds. Yet the fossil record is lacking in these kinds of transitions.

Again, YE at odds with reality.

You ever going to justify your "true bird" archaeopteryx conference claims?

 

Since you will not justify your archy conference claims, why don't you justify your Simpson quote?

Go back to the original Simpson quote, the one where you quote him as saying that the horse sequence "never happened in nature.” Then look at the expanded quote that I gave you, the one where I claim the he was talking about orthogenetic not being valid. Now, take the expanded quote and use it to show that the original quote is accurate as presented. Use the expanded quote to show that Simpson believes that there is not a valid sequence of fossils for the horse at all instead of my claim that he is only saying that the smooth transition is what is in error and that additional data has given us a more accurate series.

 

That's an inaccurate statement. My doubts about a literal 7 day creation and inability to believe fully in a young earth are rapidly changing in the face of what I've seen, listened to, and read in the short space of a week.
I cannot speak for you, but there is a definite change in the emotional content one feels toward creation when the viewpoint between young/old changes, or belief in the possibility of evolution fades. This isn't the first time I've seen nature in this magnitude, but it was the first time it "spoke" to me like this.

Lightening. Yes it is magnificent. Yes it can be explained by science. So can the growth of an unborn child. While many people feel that understanding such things takes away from amazement of it all, much like learning how a magician's illusions work ruins the trick, quite the opposite is true in my situation. It only serves to increase the wonder at One who could so easily and quickly put such things in place.
I think we agree on that point, yes?
Gina