quote:
Not true there is plenty of evidence, but off topic.
Well it must be pretty new because last I heard there was none at all. When I first came here the creationist focussing on it - and he was better informed than most creationists - was sticking to evidence for ordinary plate tectonics - which, of course, doesn't support the catastrophic element at all.
quote:
Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures.
No more than is expected, based on the fact that water is pretty good at burying things.
quote:
The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different.
Except for the evidence that the creationists have to ignore. Or misrepresent.
quote:
. Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise, but I don't see evolutionists throwing out their theories just because some of the evidence doesn't fit.
I've had this discussion before. One side - the old earth view (which some creationists - such as Hugh Ross - accept) has the bulk of the evidence except for rare anomalies, mostly unreliable. The other side seems to only have rare anomalies - there is no "large amount of observational data" supporting a young earth. Or is this something else so new that almost nobody has heard of it ?
quote:
Yes well it is an old list if you didn't notice. It was compiled in 1984 I believe and needs to be revised, I'm fairly certain some more OOP fossils have been found to add to the list to take the place of any that have been relagated to 'reworking'.
I didn't say that an example was "lost". I said that the reference given in the list itself attributed the fossils to reworking. It's not a case of new information turning up - it's information that was used to compile the list in the first place !
quote:
as for you asertions on Coelacanth: coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.
So how do you know they've remained unchanged for millions of years ?
quote:
You are speaking of specication not genus
No, AFAIK they're not even classified as being in the same family.
quote:
as my earlier post pointed out evolutionary ideas concerning genus/phyla/family are faulty and is at best a smokescreen for trying to provide proof of evolution
You mean biologist's ideas - going back to Linnaeus.