- #1
misogynisticfeminist
- 370
- 0
1. In reality, the geological records do not always appear in the nice little multi-layer strata that 'evolution' textbooks present it to be. Some appears to be folded over or upside down. i.e. some supposedly more modern strata appears below that of more ancient ones.
2. There has never been any transitional fossils found (i.e. from fish to amphibian or reptile). Genetics shows that fish is equally distant from birds as humans and in fact, all other vertebrate animals.
3. The so-called human ancestor skulls (such as lucy etc) has more paris-plaster than bones and there aren't even enough 'ape-man' bones to fill a proper casket.
4. The Cambrian explosion. No one can explain how millions of years went by with single cell organisms and suddenly at the cambrian age, a hosts of multi-cellular creatures with sufficient complexity appears out of nowhere.
5. Mutations. Mutations are generally errors in existing genetic codes. Can mutations introduce new genetic code? If mutations occurs in DNA, then the same mutation must exist in RNA to for it to read the DNA and express the right proteins. In other words, fins don't start turning into limbs due to mutation or because fishes start taking a walk on the beach several times a day, but by the introduction of new genetic code. To put it into an analogy, genetic mutation is about the same as a sentence being smeared. It will become blurrer, but it won't turn into a new picture or a new sentence.
What are some arguments against these creationist claims?? I know nuts about biology or paleontology, so I reckon I would need the help of you guys here...
: )