new

[Species] appear fully-formed with no evidence they evolved, period.

The entire evolutionary history of these species doesn't exist. And, evolutionists have are lame excuses that they can't even agree on why the fossil evidence is missing.

This fatal problem to all but those that want to have blind faith in theory that should have been discarded decades ago:

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates." *James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist Vol. 63, November-December, 1975, p. 673.

The order in which fossils are found in the Cambrian also contradicts the theory of evolution:

"The actual percentage of areas showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types." Walter E. Lammert, Growing Doubts: Is Evolutionary Theory Valid? p. 4.

BTW, evolutionists are notorious form naming the same species something different at various stages of history:

"Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, `Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?' He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, `Oh, yes, that's very widely done.' Next he was asked, 'That doesn't seem quite honest. You wouldn't do that, would you?' He said that he hoped he wouldn't . .

Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species, so 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists." L.D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.

"An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: `I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.' So it is simply a matter of judgment with no firm ground rules." Op. cit., p. 131.

A discussion of evolution between Sandy (dlo_3us2001) and another group member, prompted by Sandy posting an article entitled "The Dynamo Contradiction":

Earl says:

"I find the Pantheistic explanation very poetically pleasing."

Aren't the pantheists, the ones that follow a Goat God?

Here is what a believer named Kungfuzed says (about Pantheists):

"Willamena told me I should add Pantheism to my Religion title so I decided to look into it. I've really never heard of it. When I hear Pan I think of that little goat man dancing around with his pipes. I'd imagine Pantheism would be the worship of a little goat man. I think the word PanAtheism or Pannaturalism would be better. That way I can at least be a little goat man with no belief in God or just a natural little goat man."

Earl says:

"Through the study of genetics, we know today that corn's wild ancestor is a grass called teosinte. Teosinte doesn't look much like maize, especially when you compare its kernals to those of corn. But at the DNA level, the two are surprisingly alike. They have the same number of chromosomes and a remarkably similar arrangement of genes. In fact, teosinte can cross-breed with modern maize varieties to form maize-teosinte hybrids that can go on to reproduce naturally."

Earl, what does the DNA in corn and teosinte have to do with there being NO God?

Anything that has similar DNA, just means that God uses the same blueprint for many of his creation.

Don't living things all have eyes, noses, ears, legs,

Do you realize that Bananas and, dolphins, have some of the same DNA as humans?

Earl says:

"It is far from mathematically impossible that life began as a single cell organism. What would prevent that, mathematically speaking? Do you believe that god is incapable of making that so...that evolution is god's mechanism for populating the earth? Seems to me that saying it can not be is a vanity in and of itself. Isn't that a mortal sin?"

I never stated that evolution was God's mechanism for populating the earth. That is your theory, correct? So who is committing the sin of pride/vanity? I am believing by FAITH that God created the earth exactly as he stated he did. God is perfectly capable of making life from whatever way he chooses, but he CHOSE to create Adam and Eve in his image and in the way he created them. Everything that he did during the first 6 days for to prepare for his crowning creation, which was mankind. For if he had created man first, then there would have been no EARTH, AIR, or FOOD, TREES, SUN, WATER or ANIMALS to help Adam and Eve survive........ God does things in steps as well as we do. Why would God create something, then wait it out for billions of years and decide to allow the creation to create these others things? Why should the creation GET the glory for what God did in 6 days?

Imagine if the EYE had tried to evolve...it would of dried out before the eyelid came into play.

Here is an article you can read about the mathematical impossibility of evolution:

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/

Sandy