Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

A quick to answer to jim would be that the reason we see similar things in different species across the globe, and in different environments is really straighforward.

The arguement has only one of two answers...
common ancenstry, or
the biblical answer. Common designer.
It is not uncommon for a person to notice a picaso, or a da vinci... common designer.../artist
Well, that is the short answer. What you have suggested.. common ancestry posses more questions than it answers. This means, that in species that are not related... you would have (i beleive its called) convergent evolution? That is.. for example... the eye evolved in two or more completley different species, simultaniously.. as we have previously talked about, the beleif in such a chance occurance happening once, let alone twice, or mutliple times is something that strains credulity. Once is hard enough to imagine..
REcently read an article in creation mag about a family in australia that went to a natural park. There, they heard a tall tale of a shrimp, that aparently "evolved the ability NOT to see"
This is a survival advantage... These types of stories... admitadly not first hand... are something that I could beleive come from an evolutionist. It has evolved the ability NOT to see. Imagine that.. first it gets the ability against all odds, and then it looses it (as a benefit)... I just can't seem to grasp the logic in that...Another real sticky problem.. explain how animals could evolve to live in certain "un-livable" conditions. "sulfolobus solfataricus can survive to 88deg C near fuming sulfurous volcanic vents... Pyrococcus furiosus tolerates 100DegC..
Ferroplasma acidarmanus thrives in acid mine drainage pH 0, in california - a brew of sulfuric acid and high levels or arsenic, cadmium and other toxic chemicals."
These types of organisms called extremophilos have only recently "last few years" been discovered and studied... How can they evolve the ability to survive in those harsh conditions.. if they were there to begin with, they would have died without the survival ability. If they were exposed to only small amounts, reason would dictate they would die from it. How can you evolve the ability to survive and thrive in that type of environment. (Read carefully) Humans for example can take small doses of poisons and build up immunity to it, however.. that is not the same as coming into contact with acids, and bases.. You can't develop an immunity to muriatic acid. Trust me. I worked with the stuff for 3 years... 3 vats, filled with 60% (based on volume) @ 130 fahrneheit. You don't get used to it. Again, if this type of immunity is possible, then we should be starting to see our lungs getting used to all the chemicals in smokes. Instead the only thing we see is cancer, and crap in our lungs.
(This should not be taken as an anti smoking campaign. We should have the right to smoke if we want. We do still have the freedom to make wrong, and harmful choices, that may not be in our best interests)

Mystique svt.. the reason being that age is not the answer. Ability to escape flood waters is the answer. We see in the upper layers animals that would have been able to seek higher ground during the world wide flood of noah's day. They didn't escape the flood (obviously.. it was world wide) but they did get to higher ground. They still died. But not in the same valleys, and lower lying areas, that would have been filled in first and quickly, by large amounts of water, and sediments...
Basically to sum up the fossil record.. we see billions of dead things.. buried in rock layers.. laid down by water... all over the earth!

Jim.. the problem with your idea is that your understanding of the noahican flood is not very good. (not ment to be derogitory)
I would suggest getting a copy of John Woodmorappe's book entitled noah's ark, a feasability study.
Excellent resource to answer tough questions.. and remember this tid bit.. even the largest dino's were babies... Noah did not need to take 50 ton psoropauds on the ark.. smaller "Teenage" animals would have done the trick!