1. Yes. Yes I said fossils is the best evidence for evolution,
in my own opinion, and thanks for telling me your views on fossils.
It is a time record of what happened in the past, which was X
million years long. Let me re-write in clearer statements about our
beliefs.
Yours: You believe that fossils were laid down and
buried rapidly by a global flood over a matter of
months.
Mine: I believe that fossils were laid down by
sedimentary rock and slowly formed over millions of
years.
You pointed out that organic materials tends to decompose.
That's true. Flesh easily decompose. But why fossilizing is an rare
occurance? After organic materials decompose, we will have the
skeleton structures left. Since they were trapped in the
sedimentary layers, they were under pressure and becomes
fossilized. Where does your context of "rareness" applies here?
You quoted an evolutionist Mark Ridley. Thank for his input to
the scientific community. His input is as valuable as someone
proclaiming evolution is a fact. One can never believe in one man's
word. Analyze his finding, look at his methodology, what is his
research sample size, any assumption made ? One thing is science
will never become a fact based on one man work. Contrast that with
a bible.
You said you also need rapid burial to quickly lock out air and
other things.
May I know how does the a major flood provides rapid locking out
of air and other things. Shouldn't be the water washing out stuff?
I did see any coherency in your belief unless through your bibilcal
lens, which is making people more confused than convinced.
Evolution has produced the most diversity and complexity of
genetic information. Natural selection and mutation produce more
information and arrangement of the genetic information. Why is my
understanding so different from yours ? If you still believe in
natural selection and mutation play with pre-existing information,
you are half way right. They produce the never ending arrangement
of new genetic code. Recall the onset of HIV virus in this world.
Recall the bird flu virus, we have H1N1, then later mutates to a
strong strain of H1N3 through natural selection. H1N5 comes later.
Let me quote a example closer to us. The anti-botic medicine we
took is also gradually changing to a stronger dose and newer
medicinal power. Your doctor never tell you this ? This is in
response to the growing new strain of virus in our body through the
time that able to outsmart the drugs. When last year's flu
vaccination is no longer effective? We need a newer jab of upgraded
flu vaccination to handle this years' occurance of different virus
strain.
The above are examples of gene mutation and natural selection.
Of course you can say that how can the evolutionists take this as
evidence of evolution. This cannot demostrate that the creation of
primitive organism and evolve to what we are today. I would tell
you to be patience for X millions years and observe. Out of the
zillion chemical reactions take place during the young earth, there
is one successful reaction that forms the basic building block of
living organism. Be patience and observe for some X millions years,
bigger and more functional organism forms.
Then you may ask. Where does the moral comes from ? I am most
dumdfounded by this. We atheist suppress moral judgement given by
god ? I say moral comes from our mind. Full stop. We can think,
just like we can make up a god call steve. If moral comes from god,
why can a snake in adam's bull story had evil moral, but now snake
is deemed an animal and can't have moral now. Some religion will
punish anyone who leave the religion. On what moral is this ? What
good will religion be if it cannot allow someone who will be happy
to go elsewhere.
In my opinion, religion is a good place if you need spirital
support. Full stop. Better forget about the creation crap, it is
more confusing than convicing.
2. Let me repeat. There is no truth in the context of any
religious ideas or whatsoever. Let's not play any word game. No
truth.
1. Fossils are simply preserved remains of living things that
once lived. There is no age-labels attached when we dig out
fossils. So saying that they lived X million years ago is an
interpretation imposed onto the data. The only thing we can observe
is that they are there. What we want to do is to explain HOW they
got there, and by what mechanism. The point is that both our views
cannot be proven. I wasn't there when the flood happened and you
weren't there millions of years ago either. So it boils down to
which view best explains the fossil record.
2. That fossilisation is rare is not my opinion. I am not making
it up. I actually quoted from a secular source. Another one is
here http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Breithaupt2.html
3. I think you have quickly dismissed Mark Ridley's quote. He is
a noted figure in the world of evolutionary science. Mark was
giving his candid opinion on the fossils. Remember this is not
operational science. We are dealing with how it should be
interpreted and whether the fossil record actually supports
evolution.
4. Evolutionary textbooks will say that fossils are formed when
living things die and are covered by sedimentary rocks which are
simply rocks borne by water. On the scale of a global flood this
would explain the fossil record that envelopes our planet. The
flood has a beginning phase, a middle phase, and the ending phase.
As water engulfs the surface, earth material would be kicked up by
the raging waters together with the living things and a lot of
these would be deposited repeatedly on top of each other. Mind you
a global flood is a rare occurence, but this occurence best
explains the fossils which are also a rare occurence.
5. You claimed that evolution has produced diversity and
complexity of information. Not only is this committing the fallacy
of reification, it also fails to account for the ORIGINS of genetic
information. And information presupposes intelligence, a point you
should not miss. As for resistant bacteria, they are still bacteria
at the end of the day. They are not turning into anything else.
Besides, creationists are no enemies of natural selection and
mutations. We affirm them, but we do not believe they can turn
microbes into microbiologists. You ask me to wait millions of
years, but that's precisely the point, isn't it? It is beyond
empirical proof since no one can supposedly observe it. So how is
this scientific since there is no way to falsify your idea? At
the end of the day you only have to rely on faith that evolution
happens the way you said it did.
6. If you moral comes from our mind, then it basically means
that we make up our own morals. If that is so, then what is good to
you may not be good to another. There is no objective moral values.
You may think raping is wrong but the rapist think it is not. How
do you judge? And why should YOUR view on morals override the view
of another? All you have is not moral values, but personal
preferences that you enforce by might.
7. To call creationism crap is to commit the fallacy of cavalier
dismissal. It reveals your prejudice more than anything. To say
that there is no truth is to make a self-refuting statement. Can
you see it? It's like trying to prove that laws of logic do not
exist. You would have to affirm them in order to deny them.