What will happen when you die?

[MeDeFe]

I TRUST that He is there. I "know" that He is there because I trust him. Not that explaining this to you will have any effect at all, since you really have no interest in understanding. Why should you; you are convienced that you are the one who is right. And that, friend, is just as bad as the "religious fanatisism" I have been labeled as having. There is a word for that, it is pride.

You do realize the fallacy of what you just said, don't you? You trust that he's there, and because you trust you know that he's there. If you didn't trust you wouldn't know, but how can you trust if you don't know?

Also, it's rather presumptuous of you to claim that we all don't want to understand you and therefor never will, really, the image that comes to mind is of a whiny emo kid.

[daddy1gringo]

Look in a science book, it might just help you find evidence there.

bullshit... try to tell me this when your in hell!
Shun the non-believer!

Comments like this are not helpful. 2nd Timothy 2:24-25 says "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, patient, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth," James 3:17 says "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits..." That is the fruit of the Spirit: Galatians 5:22-23. Look it up and make sure what you write to these "non-believers" reflects all of those qualities. Then you will be acting as His mouth, and may get somewhere.

[daddy1gringo]

So we all agreed on "You rot in the ground and get eaten by maggots, eventually highly evolved chimps while suck you up through a pipe and use you to power automobiles" then?

While we all agree that this is what happens to the body, it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Actually it is begging the question.

[Frigidus]

I TRUST that He is there. I "know" that He is there because I trust him. Not that explaining this to you will have any effect at all, since you really have no interest in understanding. Why should you; you are convienced that you are the one who is right. And that, friend, is just as bad as the "religious fanatisism" I have been labeled as having. There is a word for that, it is pride.

You, too, are convinced that you are right. I think that anyone who isn't agnostic is, actually. The only difference is that I prefer to place trust on myself while you place trust on a god. It isn't fanaticism at all. They are my beliefs. I'd be a fanatic if I demanded you changed you're beliefs because they're "butt stupid" or something like that. I too am proud, not of my beliefs, but rather that I am strong enough to have decided what my beliefs are. You continue to try to make us seem completely different, but we really aren't.

[daddy1gringo]

Okay, here I continue to hijack this thread onto evolution. It is not fact, just theory, and not a very logical or scientific one at that. Much of what is considered evidence for evolution is no such thing, though the school textbooks still pretend they are.

Creatures adapting to their environment by natural selection? This is consistent with the Biblical principle that creatures “bring forth after their own kind.” The parents whose characteristics are more favorable to survival and reproduction contribute more of their genes to the next generation, so each succeeding generation will express these characteristics. The evolutionary assertion is that “speciation” thereby occurs: new species are thereby created. There is no evidence of this occurring. As a matter of fact all evidence is to the contrary.

Look at dogs. Selective breeding by humans has pushed the hand of natural selection until there are dogs of more diversity than exists between some species, in size, shape, fur type, even temperament. Yet they are all still the same species; they can still reproduce with one another. Granted, if you’re talking about a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, the logistics are a little difficult, but genetically speaking, the can still reproduce. Recently in Africa environmental changes forced a population of baboons and one of mandrills together. The groups merged and reproduced, indicating that what had been thought to be 2 separate species were just separated populations which had expressed different characteristics due to environment and/or different dominant individuals, but no speciation occurred.

Extinct species? If you have a certain number of animals and you kill them all off, they are extinct. If you kill enough that what is left is not a viable population, they will soon become extinct. This says nothing about new species being created.

Existence of fossils? How do you get a fossil? Creatures that die and fall to the ground do not become fossils. They decompose, even the bones, and that’s assuming they are not first consumed by scavengers. A fossil develops when the creature is covered when it is still warm, or even alive, by mud. What would you expect to find if the book of Genesis, including the Flood, is true? “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” What are fossils? “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.”

We have all seen those “parade” drawings beginning with ramapithecus and ending with modern man. Every link in that chain is gone or seriously in question by evolutionists. Discovery of more bones of “ramapithecus” has proved it to be a common orangutan. They didn’t recognize it at first because the conclusion they jumped to was based on so few fragments. How about Australopithecus, including the famous Lucy? The latest studies of the cervical vertebrae indicate that it did not walk upright and was not an ancestor of man. The only thing that indicates that it walked upright is the knee joint which was not found with the rest of the skeleton, but 2 miles away and 200 feet lower in the rock strata. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man are not significantly different from the skeletons of some of your neighbors. The first Neanderthals discovered appeared to be stooped over because the entire village suffered from rickets, as closer study of the bones has revealed.

The whole idea of evolution is extremely illogical. OK, it kind of works for the giraffe’s long neck. A little bit longer neck means it can reach leaves a little bit higher etc. But when we talk about a lot of other “adaptations” it falls apart.

My favorite is wings. On the bat and the winged dinosaurs, one finger is grown to a ridiculous length and a fold of skin on it forms a wing. The problem with applying the theory of evolution by natural selection to that is that before they were fully developed, these gross distortions would be useless as “wings”. If anything they would, like ALL observed mutations, reduce viability and survivability. These creatures would not contribute a disproportionate amount of their genes to the gene pool. Even if the line of descendants managed to survive this ever increasing deformity until the wings were developed to a useful state, who taught ‘em to use it? Up until that point, creatures who jumped out of trees and flapped their arms would become extinct real quickly.

And by the way, where are the fossils of all these transitional forms? In this case as in all cases, there exists not one fossil of a transitional form. All evolutionary transitional creatures are imaginary, excuse me, hypothetical. Tomato, to-mah-to. (Sorry, couldn’t help that dig. You gotta admit it’s mild compared to some that get thrown at us.) Anyway, you could fill a book with the examples of “nothing works until everything works” that just debunk the theory of evolution.

Gads, this has gotten long and there;’s so much more to say. Well, let’s hack away at this stuff and maybe I can bring some of the other stuff up along the way.

[Frigidus]

Okay, here I continue to hijack this thread onto evolution. It is not fact, just theory, and not a very logical or scientific one at that. Much of what is considered evidence for evolution is no such thing, though the school textbooks still pretend they are.

Creatures adapting to their environment by natural selection? This is consistent with the Biblical principle that creatures “bring forth after their own kind.” The parents whose characteristics are more favorable to survival and reproduction contribute more of their genes to the next generation, so each succeeding generation will express these characteristics. The evolutionary assertion is that “speciation” thereby occurs: new species are thereby created. There is no evidence of this occurring. As a matter of fact all evidence is to the contrary.

I'm with you up to this point. But...

Look at dogs. Selective breeding by humans has pushed the hand of natural selection until there are dogs of more diversity than exists between some species, in size, shape, fur type, even temperament. Yet they are all still the same species; they can still reproduce with one another. Granted, if you’re talking about a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, the logistics are a little difficult, but genetically speaking, the can still reproduce. Recently in Africa environmental changes forced a population of baboons and one of mandrills together. The groups merged and reproduced, indicating that what had been thought to be 2 separate species were just separated populations which had expressed different characteristics due to environment and/or different dominant individuals, but no speciation occurred.

The thing is that dogs have only been around for as long as humans have. For instance, my dog's specific breed only came to exist when some farmers needed a ratter. However, as you pointed out the only are different in size, shape, fur type, temperament, etc. How is this different from size, distinguishing facial features, skin color, temperament, and so on? Humans can be very different, but we are all still a species. Actually, now that I think about it I'm making your point for you. What I'm trying to say is that it takes a long, long, long amount of time to separate from each other. Not the difference between an Asian and an African so much as an Asian and a chimpanzee.

Extinct species? If you have a certain number of animals and you kill them all off, they are extinct. If you kill enough that what is left is not a viable population, they will soon become extinct. This says nothing about new species being created.

Agreed. The ending of a species does not constitute a new one. Rather it is the branching off of one species into two, usually due to geographical seperation.

Existence of fossils? How do you get a fossil? Creatures that die and fall to the ground do not become fossils. They decompose, even the bones, and that’s assuming they are not first consumed by scavengers. A fossil develops when the creature is covered when it is still warm, or even alive, by mud. What would you expect to find if the book of Genesis, including the Flood, is true? “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” What are fossils? “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.”

While this argument can be made, it has no effect on evolution. I'm not exactly an expert, but it seems to me there would be many more fossils if that was the case, but it's an entirely different issue. Also, keep in mind that our world is already over 2/3 water.

We have all seen those “parade” drawings beginning with ramapithecus and ending with modern man. Every link in that chain is gone or seriously in question by evolutionists. Discovery of more bones of “ramapithecus” has proved it to be a common orangutan. They didn’t recognize it at first because the conclusion they jumped to was based on so few fragments. How about Australopithecus, including the famous Lucy? The latest studies of the cervical vertebrae indicate that it did not walk upright and was not an ancestor of man. The only thing that indicates that it walked upright is the knee joint which was not found with the rest of the skeleton, but 2 miles away and 200 feet lower in the rock strata. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man are not significantly different from the skeletons of some of your neighbors. The first Neanderthals discovered appeared to be stooped over because the entire village suffered from rickets, as closer study of the bones has revealed.

I have heard about Lucy, but the Neanderthal's and Cro-magnon's are very different from us when it comes to skeletal structure. They have bigger brains, thicker skulls, larger teeth, broader shoulders, and so on.

The whole idea of evolution is extremely illogical. OK, it kind of works for the giraffe’s long neck. A little bit longer neck means it can reach leaves a little bit higher etc. But when we talk about a lot of other “adaptations” it falls apart.

My favorite is wings. On the bat and the winged dinosaurs, one finger is grown to a ridiculous length and a fold of skin on it forms a wing. The problem with applying the theory of evolution by natural selection to that is that before they were fully developed, these gross distortions would be useless as “wings”. If anything they would, like ALL observed mutations, reduce viability and survivability. These creatures would not contribute a disproportionate amount of their genes to the gene pool. Even if the line of descendants managed to survive this ever increasing deformity until the wings were developed to a useful state, who taught ‘em to use it? Up until that point, creatures who jumped out of trees and flapped their arms would become extinct real quickly.

Look at flying squirrels. They don't have wings, rather flaps of skin, but it helps then maneuver. Also, they didn't "learn" to fly any more than we "learned" to speak. It's part of their instincts, genetically ingrained into them.

And by the way, where are the fossils of all these transitional forms? In this case as in all cases, there exists not one fossil of a transitional form. All evolutionary transitional creatures are imaginary, excuse me, hypothetical. Tomato, to-mah-to. (Sorry, couldn’t help that dig. You gotta admit it’s mild compared to some that get thrown at us.) Anyway, you could fill a book with the examples of “nothing works until everything works” that just debunk the theory of evolution.

Gads, this has gotten long and there;’s so much more to say. Well, let’s hack away at this stuff and maybe I can bring some of the other stuff up along the way.

If animals were helpful enough to all die in a place where fossilization occurs we wouldn't have this problem. Naturally the transitional creatures we don't have are hypothetical. That doesn't make them less true.

[Snorri1234]

I think some people also misunderstand what trasitional fossils actually are. They're not half-fish and half-monkey or something.

[Neoteny]

Okay, here I continue to hijack this thread onto evolution. It is not fact, just theory, and not a very logical or scientific one at that. Much of what is considered evidence for evolution is no such thing, though the school textbooks still pretend they are.

Ok...

Creatures adapting to their environment by natural selection? This is consistent with the Biblical principle that creatures “bring forth after their own kind.” The parents whose characteristics are more favorable to survival and reproduction contribute more of their genes to the next generation, so each succeeding generation will express these characteristics. The evolutionary assertion is that “speciation” thereby occurs: new species are thereby created. There is no evidence of this occurring. As a matter of fact all evidence is to the contrary.

Not true. Genetic evidence disagrees with you there.

Look at dogs. Selective breeding by humans has pushed the hand of natural selection until there are dogs of more diversity than exists between some species, in size, shape, fur type, even temperament. Yet they are all still the same species; they can still reproduce with one another. Granted, if you’re talking about a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, the logistics are a little difficult, but genetically speaking, the can still reproduce. Recently in Africa environmental changes forced a population of baboons and one of mandrills together. The groups merged and reproduced, indicating that what had been thought to be 2 separate species were just separated populations which had expressed different characteristics due to environment and/or different dominant individuals, but no speciation occurred.

I'm not sure you really understand the concept of speciation.

Extinct species? If you have a certain number of animals and you kill them all off, they are extinct. If you kill enough that what is left is not a viable population, they will soon become extinct. This says nothing about new species being created.

Your point? See speciation comment above.

Existence of fossils? How do you get a fossil? Creatures that die and fall to the ground do not become fossils. They decompose, even the bones, and that’s assuming they are not first consumed by scavengers. A fossil develops when the creature is covered when it is still warm, or even alive, by mud. What would you expect to find if the book of Genesis, including the Flood, is true? “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” What are fossils? “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.”

Actually, I would expect billions of dead things buried in a single rock layer all over the earth. If you look at local floods, they form a single layer, so one would expect the same of a world flood. This is not what we see.

We have all seen those “parade” drawings beginning with ramapithecus and ending with modern man. Every link in that chain is gone or seriously in question by evolutionists. Discovery of more bones of “ramapithecus” has proved it to be a common orangutan. They didn’t recognize it at first because the conclusion they jumped to was based on so few fragments. How about Australopithecus, including the famous Lucy? The latest studies of the cervical vertebrae indicate that it did not walk upright and was not an ancestor of man. The only thing that indicates that it walked upright is the knee joint which was not found with the rest of the skeleton, but 2 miles away and 200 feet lower in the rock strata. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man are not significantly different from the skeletons of some of your neighbors. The first Neanderthals discovered appeared to be stooped over because the entire village suffered from rickets, as closer study of the bones has revealed.

The parade drawings are a source of misunderstanding. But no one who actually understands evolution thinks that's how evolution occurred. The odds of us finding a direct ancestor of man are fairly small, but finding relatives of the direct answer (Australopithecus, etc.) are a bit more likely. Again, your point?

The whole idea of evolution is extremely illogical. OK, it kind of works for the giraffe’s long neck. A little bit longer neck means it can reach leaves a little bit higher etc. But when we talk about a lot of other “adaptations” it falls apart.

My favorite is wings. On the bat and the winged dinosaurs, one finger is grown to a ridiculous length and a fold of skin on it forms a wing. The problem with applying the theory of evolution by natural selection to that is that before they were fully developed, these gross distortions would be useless as “wings”. If anything they would, like ALL observed mutations, reduce viability and survivability. These creatures would not contribute a disproportionate amount of their genes to the gene pool. Even if the line of descendants managed to survive this ever increasing deformity until the wings were developed to a useful state, who taught ‘em to use it? Up until that point, creatures who jumped out of trees and flapped their arms would become extinct real quickly.

Whew, that's a case there. So you're telling me that if you were on a plane plummeting on the earth, you couldn't see a difference between no wings and half-wings? Come on, now. A small wing is better than no wing.

And by the way, where are the fossils of all these transitional forms? In this case as in all cases, there exists not one fossil of a transitional form. All evolutionary transitional creatures are imaginary, excuse me, hypothetical. Tomato, to-mah-to. (Sorry, couldn’t help that dig. You gotta admit it’s mild compared to some that get thrown at us.) Anyway, you could fill a book with the examples of “nothing works until everything works” that just debunk the theory of evolution.

Gads, this has gotten long and there;’s so much more to say. Well, let’s hack away at this stuff and maybe I can bring some of the other stuff up along the way.

Not one fossil? Really? I can think of a lot of paleontologists who might slap you for being oblivious to their life's work. Anyhow, irreducible complexity has yet to be demonstrated by any means, so your version of evidence there has about the same amount of backing as you accuse evolution of at the beginning of your post. What makes your assertions any better than someone else's? Have you devoted your life to the study of biology? Might someone with a degree from Princeton or Oxford be better suited to sorting out the evidence?

[comic boy]

I find it quite sad really that every attempt to promote creationism ends up in an attack on evolution

[daddy1gringo]

[What I'm trying to say is that it takes a long, long, long amount of time to separate from each other. Not the difference between an Asian and an African so much as an Asian and a chimpanzee.

It takes a long time for evolution to occur (according to the theory) because it takes many random events for the better suited mutants to survive more and reproduce more than the others. A better-fit individual could still be at the wrong place at the wrong time. My point here is that breeders have replaced time with intentionality, with human intervention. Putting the desired specimens alone in the same enclosure when the female is in heat replaces generations of waiting for the slightly-longer-necked strain to be signicficantly more robust because they can eat a few more leaves. Less time, but equal opportunity for genetic selection.

The ending of a species does not constitute a new one. Rather it is the branching off of one species into two, usually due to geographical seperation.

It’s not necessarily either. The ending of a species just means they’re dead. That’s my point. The myth I’m debunking is that extinction necessarily implies another species replacing it.

I have heard about Lucy, but the Neanderthal's and Cro-magnon's are very different from us when it comes to skeletal structure. They have bigger brains, thicker skulls, larger teeth, broader shoulders, and so on.

I’m sorry but you’re wrong there. They are within the range of variation that is found in different populations of modern man. Unless you’re going to take the racist position that certain races are evolutionarily inferior, these skeletons are as “homo sapiens” as yours or mine. Give them a shave and a suit and they’d walk through your neighborhood unnoticed. Keep in mind, the drawings and wax figures in museums that you see are made by people who believe them ape-ish. There’s a lot of room for creativity and preconceptions to be expressed.

…they didn't "learn" to fly any more than we "learned" to speak. It's part of their instincts, genetically ingrained into them.

That’s my point. The action of flying, being instinctive, would have to have evolved, just like the wings. It would somehow have to have happened at the exact same time, without cause. Either one without the other would not enable flight. Either one without the other would decrease rather than increase viability and contribution to the gene pool.

The evolutionary assertion is that “speciation” thereby occurs: new species are thereby created. There is no evidence of this occurring. As a matter of fact all evidence is to the contrary.

Not true. Genetic evidence disagrees with you there.

Can you be more specific? I’m not sure what genetic evidence you are talking about, but I’ll bet it will turn out to be just an opinion or interpretation, just as easily read the other way.

I'm not sure you really understand the concept of speciation.
Your point? See speciation comment above.

Speciation is the idea, at the heart of evolutionary theory, that adaptations of a species can continue to a degree that a new species is created, or that the evolutionary changes in 2 different populations of a creature can continue to the point where they become 2 different species. One of the determining factors in whether 2 creatures are different or the same species is whether or not they can reproduce together.

As for my point, note that I said “evidence” not “proof”. The theory of speciation is, as yet, neither verifiable nor negatable, because according to Ev. theory it would take more time than that in which man has been making scientific observations. But in these and all other occasions where it might be observable, it does not occur. In the case of dogs, as I said, breeding artificially packed more “natural selections” into a shorter time bringing great variation in characteristics; more than between some species. In the case of the baboons, generational divergence of characteristics began before we started observing, and had progressed to a degree that zoologists thought them different species. If any circumstances would have opportunity to prove that new species are created by genetic adaptation, these would have, but they do not.

(About wings and flight)

Whew, that's a case there. So you're telling me that if you were on a plane plummeting on the earth, you couldn't see a difference between no wings and half-wings? Come on, now. A small wing is better than no wing.

No, I’m saying that, until they achieved flight, these creatures wouldn’t be plummeting from anything. They would be running through fields or forests trying to either catch prey or avoid becoming prey. These gross deformities and weird behaviors would certainly not help them survive and thereby contribute to the gene pool. They would probably hinder, being an extra weight and getting caught on underbrush.

Not one fossil? Really? I can think of a lot of paleontologists who might slap you for being oblivious to their life's work.

On the contrary I am referencing their life’s work, not ignoring it. What they find are many fossils of the same creatures, and occasionally new ones, fully formed. Lots of fossils; none of transitional creatures. That’s why in recent years evolutionists had to invent the “Cambrian Explosion.” They were amazed that in so many cases, even they couldn’t deny that creatures show up fully formed in the fossil record. I could have told them that years ago.

What makes your assertions any better than someone else's? Have you devoted your life to the study of biology? Might someone with a degree from Princeton or Oxford be better suited to sorting out the evidence?

Neo, It’s below you to resort to this. There are scientists with these credentials on both sides of the debate. I am just pointing out some of the obvious illogicalities of the evolutionary theory. I got my information from works by said scientists, on both sides of the debate, just like you, except that you’ve probably never read anything by a leading creationist. You’re coming from the myth that evolution is proven science and anyone who disagrees is an uninformed ignoramus, turning a blind eye to “all that evidence.” I was debunking that myth and showing that the evidence for evolution is not really “all that.”

[MeDeFe]

[What I'm trying to say is that it takes a long, long, long amount of time to separate from each other. Not the difference between an Asian and an African so much as an Asian and a chimpanzee.

It takes a long time for evolution to occur (according to the theory) because it takes many random events for the better suited mutants to survive more and reproduce more than the others. A better-fit individual could still be at the wrong place at the wrong time. My point here is that breeders have replaced time with intentionality, with human intervention. Putting the desired specimens alone in the same enclosure when the female is in heat replaces generations of waiting for the slightly-longer-necked strain to be signicficantly more robust because they can eat a few more leaves. Less time, but equal opportunity for genetic selection.

Not quite, a fitter individual is one that is more likely to successfully pass on its genes, not much that's random about that. An individual who is not successful in passing on its genes is not "in the wrong place" or "at the wrong time", it's an individual that's not fit. In fact, it would require more random factors for those individuals that have a higher potential for passing on their genes not to manage to do so.

…they didn't "learn" to fly any more than we "learned" to speak. It's part of their instincts, genetically ingrained into them.

That’s my point. The action of flying, being instinctive, would have to have evolved, just like the wings. It would somehow have to have happened at the exact same time, without cause. Either one without the other would not enable flight. Either one without the other would decrease rather than increase viability and contribution to the gene pool.

Actually I think that flying is at the very least a partly learned behaviour, every summer you can see these young birds, staying just above ground and flying only 2 or 3 meters. They're practising flying, how's that not a learned behaviour? I cannot quote you any studies, but at least on the surface it appears to me that they learn to fly in a similar way as children learn to speak, by imitation. There's a potential for it, but in order for it to develop it must be practised and used.

Whew, that's a case there. So you're telling me that if you were on a plane plummeting on the earth, you couldn't see a difference between no wings and half-wings? Come on, now. A small wing is better than no wing.

No, I’m saying that, until they achieved flight, these creatures wouldn’t be plummeting from anything. They would be running through fields or forests trying to either catch prey or avoid becoming prey. These gross deformities and weird behaviors would certainly not help them survive and thereby contribute to the gene pool. They would probably hinder, being an extra weight and getting caught on underbrush.

And how do you know they didn't live in treetops? Where the risk if falling is substantially higher than on the ground, a higher likelihood to survive a fall would result in more time to produce offspring and a consequently a higher fitness. Flapping wildly with anything winglike could make the difference between a broken leg and being eaten by a predator and a few bruises and a safe escape back up the tree again.

Not one fossil? Really? I can think of a lot of paleontologists who might slap you for being oblivious to their life's work.

On the contrary I am referencing their life’s work, not ignoring it. What they find are many fossils of the same creatures, and occasionally new ones, fully formed. Lots of fossils; none of transitional creatures. That’s why in recent years evolutionists had to invent the “Cambrian Explosion.” They were amazed that in so many cases, even they couldn’t deny that creatures show up fully formed in the fossil record. I could have told them that years ago.

And what might a half-formed creature be, pray? The common ancestor of birds and monkeys was definitely not a monkey with feathers and a beak. The problem here is that every creature is fully formed, whether it's transitional or not. You might want to have a look at the Archaeopteryx for one that displays characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds. It still looks pretty "fully formed" to me.

[Neoteny]

The evolutionary assertion is that “speciation” thereby occurs: new species are thereby created. There is no evidence of this occurring. As a matter of fact all evidence is to the contrary.

Not true. Genetic evidence disagrees with you there.

Can you be more specific? I’m not sure what genetic evidence you are talking about, but I’ll bet it will turn out to be just an opinion or interpretation, just as easily read the other way.

Comparison's of mutation rates in important genes in closely and distantly related species. I won't get into it, as I think the important argument is below.

I'm not sure you really understand the concept of speciation.
Your point? See speciation comment above.

Speciation is the idea, at the heart of evolutionary theory, that adaptations of a species can continue to a degree that a new species is created, or that the evolutionary changes in 2 different populations of a creature can continue to the point where they become 2 different species. One of the determining factors in whether 2 creatures are different or the same species is whether or not they can reproduce together.

As for my point, note that I said “evidence” not “proof”. The theory of speciation is, as yet, neither verifiable nor negatable, because according to Ev. theory it would take more time than that in which man has been making scientific observations. But in these and all other occasions where it might be observable, it does not occur. In the case of dogs, as I said, breeding artificially packed more “natural selections” into a shorter time bringing great variation in characteristics; more than between some species. In the case of the baboons, generational divergence of characteristics began before we started observing, and had progressed to a degree that zoologists thought them different species. If any circumstances would have opportunity to prove that new species are created by genetic adaptation, these would have, but they do not.

Let me describe an incredibly interesting situation to you that I learned in herpetology last year. There is a species of plethodontid salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzi if anyone cares) that lives in California. Its range is over a good chunk of the state making an upside down (assuming you think north is up, of course) "U" around the Great Central Valley of California. There are a series of seven subspecies that populate the "U," one starting in the mountains of SoCal, one starting in the San Francisco area, and onward around the valley. Here's a pic to illustrate:



The subspecies all interbreed as they go around the "U" making them one species according to the most commonly accepted species theory. However, at the tips of the "U," the first and final subspecies successfully interbreed very rarely, if at all (in some areas they barely can, in others they cannot at all). So now what do we call the populations that cannot interbreed? Are they a different species? If so, where do we draw the line? This is speciation in action, whether we can define it or not, and it illustrates a key point. People take for granted the idea of a species because it is generally clear-cut. A dog cannot successfully mate with a cat. A horse can breed with a donkey, but the offspring is always unfertile. This is not the case with these salamanders. In two subspecies, interbreeding is all but impossible, but if you follow the trail around the valley, it is easy to interbreed. My point is that if you don't understand the species concept that speciation theory is based on, you cannot understand speciation. The case of the salamanders also illustrates how evolution in general works. It is not a parade, but a branching that occurs. Sure it occurs in a timescale we can't observe, but this is a unique and telling snapshot.

(About wings and flight)

Whew, that's a case there. So you're telling me that if you were on a plane plummeting on the earth, you couldn't see a difference between no wings and half-wings? Come on, now. A small wing is better than no wing.

No, I’m saying that, until they achieved flight, these creatures wouldn’t be plummeting from anything. They would be running through fields or forests trying to either catch prey or avoid becoming prey. These gross deformities and weird behaviors would certainly not help them survive and thereby contribute to the gene pool. They would probably hinder, being an extra weight and getting caught on underbrush.

What are you talking about now? I can't fly, but have plummeted from high places on multiple occasions. And I live on the ground. There are a shit-ton of things that live in trees that have a chance of plummeting that don't have wings. If I had half a wing, I might not have shattered my scyphoid and fractured my radial head last time. That would have been nice.

Not one fossil? Really? I can think of a lot of paleontologists who might slap you for being oblivious to their life's work.

On the contrary I am referencing their life’s work, not ignoring it. What they find are many fossils of the same creatures, and occasionally new ones, fully formed. Lots of fossils; none of transitional creatures. That’s why in recent years evolutionists had to invent the “Cambrian Explosion.” They were amazed that in so many cases, even they couldn’t deny that creatures show up fully formed in the fossil record. I could have told them that years ago.

Every time a transitional fossil is found, anti-evolutionists claim that they need two more transitional fossils to fill in the new gaps. I won't get into this again unless you really want to, but the salamanders illustrate transition well enough.

What makes your assertions any better than someone else's? Have you devoted your life to the study of biology? Might someone with a degree from Princeton or Oxford be better suited to sorting out the evidence?

Neo, It’s below you to resort to this. There are scientists with these credentials on both sides of the debate. I am just pointing out some of the obvious illogicalities of the evolutionary theory. I got my information from works by said scientists, on both sides of the debate, just like you, except that you’ve probably never read anything by a leading creationist. You’re coming from the myth that evolution is proven science and anyone who disagrees is an uninformed ignoramus, turning a blind eye to “all that evidence.” I was debunking that myth and showing that the evidence for evolution is not really “all that.”

Yeah, that was probably pretty low. My bad. I'm reading Hugh Ross at the moment, which is remarkably painful. I've read better creationist work; I definitely wouldn't call him a leader, but I'm just throwing it out there. :] I'm actually coming from said myth after coming out of the myth that there is a god. I've evaluated the evidence, and have found fewer illogicalities and inconsistencies, far fewer, indeed.