- 14 Aug 2017 19:42
#14833199
To prove the theory of evolution, they must prove when and how it began. They have failed to do that, so they can not possibly trace the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.
Wrong again. The theory of evolution was disproved, not creationism. The creator God is alive, and therefore life can come from Him. Louis Pasteur proved that life does not come from non-organic matter, regardless of the complexity of the molecules.
On the basis of the finds, a representation of how Tiktaalik may have looked was produced and presented to the world as proof positive of a transitional form in fish-to-tetrapod evolution. In 2006, Dr Jonathan Sarfati considered the evidence and pointed out that Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land.
Shubin, "Tiktaalik’s pelvis works like a fish pelvis and not a tetrapod weight-bearing pelvis."
So, by the authors’ own admission, Tiktaalik’s pelvis is easily recognizable as a fish pelvis. To put it in less evolution-friendly terms: Tiktaalik was designed to be a fish, not a tetrapod. This also means that what Per Ahlberg once said of Tiktaalik’s pectoral fins applies just as much to its pelvic girdle. In other words, like every other part of Tiktaalik, its pelvis shows that it is a fish.
A favorable media report about the latest Shubin paper admits that “scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone, or any remains that might shed light on the origins of toes,” without realizing how vital those elements are if the story is true.
Shubin’s response is revealing: “The hind fin of Tiktaalik is tantalisingly incomplete.”
He already stated in the paper that, whatever the result, Tiktaalik’s pelvis shows that its pelvic fin couldn’t bear weight on land! So just like the rest of the storytelling on this specimen over the years, the evolutionists have talked the talk but they can’t make Tiktaalik walk.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-pelvis
Even if true, when analyzed in detail, the evidence is consistent not with evolution, but with a particular form of intelligent design, the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message.
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho41.htm
That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts evolutionary explanations. In this case, the common modules point to one common designer, but evolution is powerless to explain this modular pattern, since natural selection can work only on organisms as a whole. That is, it cannot select for particular head design as such, but only for creatures that have a head that confers superior fitness. But a designer who worked with different modules could create different creatures with different modules, that fit no consistent evolutionary pattern.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a- ... ssing-link
In my opinion, "Tiktaalik" is just a fish with the head crushed flat. This is just another of the many alleged transitional forms that have been proven false.
Huxley and Darwin discussed the possibility. In "The Descent of Man" (1871) Darwin clearly discusses humans and apes having a common ancestor. Other evolutionists have said the Chimpanzee is our closest living relative in the ape family. I believe we are descendants of humans and did not evolve from any other creature.
ingliz wrote:They have not, but then why should they? Evolution traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.
To prove the theory of evolution, they must prove when and how it began. They have failed to do that, so they can not possibly trace the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.
ingliz wrote:The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
Wrong again. The theory of evolution was disproved, not creationism. The creator God is alive, and therefore life can come from Him. Louis Pasteur proved that life does not come from non-organic matter, regardless of the complexity of the molecules.
starman2003 wrote:Tiktaalik is indisputable proof that a transition from fish to amphibian was possible and occurred. There are many transitional forms known.
On the basis of the finds, a representation of how Tiktaalik may have looked was produced and presented to the world as proof positive of a transitional form in fish-to-tetrapod evolution. In 2006, Dr Jonathan Sarfati considered the evidence and pointed out that Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land.
Shubin, "Tiktaalik’s pelvis works like a fish pelvis and not a tetrapod weight-bearing pelvis."
So, by the authors’ own admission, Tiktaalik’s pelvis is easily recognizable as a fish pelvis. To put it in less evolution-friendly terms: Tiktaalik was designed to be a fish, not a tetrapod. This also means that what Per Ahlberg once said of Tiktaalik’s pectoral fins applies just as much to its pelvic girdle. In other words, like every other part of Tiktaalik, its pelvis shows that it is a fish.
A favorable media report about the latest Shubin paper admits that “scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone, or any remains that might shed light on the origins of toes,” without realizing how vital those elements are if the story is true.
Shubin’s response is revealing: “The hind fin of Tiktaalik is tantalisingly incomplete.”
He already stated in the paper that, whatever the result, Tiktaalik’s pelvis shows that its pelvic fin couldn’t bear weight on land! So just like the rest of the storytelling on this specimen over the years, the evolutionists have talked the talk but they can’t make Tiktaalik walk.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-pelvis
Even if true, when analyzed in detail, the evidence is consistent not with evolution, but with a particular form of intelligent design, the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message.
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho41.htm
That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts evolutionary explanations. In this case, the common modules point to one common designer, but evolution is powerless to explain this modular pattern, since natural selection can work only on organisms as a whole. That is, it cannot select for particular head design as such, but only for creatures that have a head that confers superior fitness. But a designer who worked with different modules could create different creatures with different modules, that fit no consistent evolutionary pattern.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a- ... ssing-link
In my opinion, "Tiktaalik" is just a fish with the head crushed flat. This is just another of the many alleged transitional forms that have been proven false.
starman2003 wrote:Who ever said our species evolved from a chimp?? We evolved from earlier members of the genus Homo.
Huxley and Darwin discussed the possibility. In "The Descent of Man" (1871) Darwin clearly discusses humans and apes having a common ancestor. Other evolutionists have said the Chimpanzee is our closest living relative in the ape family. I believe we are descendants of humans and did not evolve from any other creature.
The more I study science, the more I believe in God.
- Albert Einstein
- Albert Einstein