There is not enough erosion between the rock layers years for very many years to have passed between them.

[McBell]

I love the total denial of the fact.

I know right.
But then, that is all you got, denial of the facts.

Evolution causes vast changes in very short times but none in vast eons. What a delusion. You have been had.

Impossible to take someone who knows less than nothing about evolution seriously.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I know right.
But then, that is all you got, denial of the facts.


Impossible to take someone who knows less than nothing about evolution seriously.

And you should read your own comments as they apply to you.

 

[McBell]

And you should read your own comments as they apply to you.

"I know you are but what am I?

You really want to leave a mark on the Creation v Evolution debate world?
Come up with something brand new never been claimed before.
Since it is obvious you care not one fleas sweat gland about being right, you got complete free reign to let loose.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To clarify things for those interested in facts. Evolution does not cause vast change or even tiny change. Evolution is the change. The environment acting on the population is what causes the change. I would expect someone railing on and on and on and on and on...should know that. Of course, they never do.

In stable environments, the rate of evolution is reduced. Very stable environments may conserve higher taxonomic groups, but the species of millions of years ago are not the same species found in those groups today. Coelancanths are example of this. The basic body type has been conserved for at least 80 million years.

There is also genetic drift and gene flow that can drive change to a lesser extant than the environment and of course those populations on the fringe of the range are likely to undergo greater change over time than those in the core of the stable environment. Thus we see change on a macro scale at the level of speciation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

To clarify things for those interested in facts. Evolution does not cause vast change or even tiny change. Evolution is the change. The environment acting on the population is what causes the change. I would expect someone railing on and on and on and on and on...should know that. Of course, they never do.

In stable environments, the rate of evolution is reduced. Very stable environments may conserve higher taxonomic groups, but the species of millions of years ago are not the same species found in those groups today. Coelancanths are example of this. The basic body type has been conserved for at least 80 million years.

There is also genetic drift and gene flow that can drive change to a lesser extant than the environment and of course those populations on the fringe of the range are likely to undergo greater change over time than those in the core of the stable environment. Thus we see change on a macro scale at the level of speciation.

The lamprey was not in a stable environment as the op pointed out but in a very unstable environment. So, you have thus acknowledged that the lamprey and other living fossils refute evolution and billions of years. Great job.

 

[McBell]

The lamprey was not in a stable environment as the op pointed out but in a very unstable environment.

And?
You do know that your opinions on the state of the environment has absolutely zero bearing on the lampreys ability to survive said environment with the need to adapt to it, right?
Or is this yet another fact you will ignore/dismiss?

So, you have thus acknowledged that the lamprey and other living fossils refute evolution and billions of years. Great job.

Nope
Not even close

 

[Esteban X]

The lamprey was not in a stable environment as the op pointed out but in a very unstable environment. So, you have thus acknowledged that the lamprey and other living fossils refute evolution and billions of years. Great job.

You make the mistake of believing that evolution proposes only linear change. It includes diversification, lines of descent diverge, if a line breeding true is not deleterious to survival it continues, alongside other non-deleterious changes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And?
You do know that your opinions on the state of the environment has absolutely zero bearing on the lampreys ability to survive said environment with the need to adapt to it, right?

The environmental factors, even during extinction events were obviously stable enough for some species of lamprey to survive and proliferate into modern times.

Part of the flawed thinking is that extinction events are total extinction and that isn't the case. If it were, we wouldn't even be here.

Whatever causes those events has not altered the environment on a large enough scale to drive the extinction of all species. In fact, extinction events would empty previously occupied niches that can be exploited and allow for more rapid bursts of evolution in whatever groups are exploiting them.

Or is this yet another fact you will ignore/dismiss?

I'm finding that with certain people claiming they are Christian, ignore and dismiss seems to be a big part of their SOP.

They don't like to answer tough questions and will jump through all sorts of hoops to avoid answering them.

Personally, that doesn't seem all that Christian to me. In my opinion, it renders certain positions and tactics hypocritical.

Nope
Not even close

You are correct. The claims that the existence of modern species of lampreys refute evolution are mistaken. The evidence shows that whatever altered the environment on different occasions leading to mass extinctions did not destabilize the global environment enough to end all life, including lampreys.

It is just wishful thinking coupled with bad assumptions and ignorance to come to a desired conclusion that is easily refuted.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You make the mistake of believing that evolution proposes only linear change. It includes diversification, lines of descent diverge, if a line breeding true is not deleterious to survival it continues, alongside other non-deleterious changes.

All of which amounts to lots of change over lots of time.
Your own guys said it did not change and that is the reason they had to come up with it was in a state of perfection and hund up the no change sign. But there were enormous forces which should have driven change over 350 million years and did not, And it is not the only living fossil. so all these prove evolution and billions of years false.

 

[FredVB]

The universe and the world, without being formed, with all the life on it, might be far older than the time of creation in a week shown at the start of the Bible. The Bible does not show that cannot be. The unformed world was already there, as it shows. All life was then made on it with water, air, and land for them, and the original human ancestors were made to be there, then. Variation came since according to the possibilities with gene pools.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The universe and the world, without being formed, with all the life on it, might be far older than the time of creation in a week shown at the start of the Bible. The Bible does not show that cannot be. The unformed world was already there, as it shows. All life was then made on it with water, air, and land for them, and the original human ancestors were made to be there, then. Variation came since according to the possibilities with gene pools.

Not according to Ex 20:11, Exo 31:17, and Christ saying that from the beginning of the world God made them male and female.

 

[FredVB]

Not according to Ex 20:11, Exo 31:17, and Christ saying that from the beginning of the world God made them male and female.

Exodus 20:11
In six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.

You observe the Sabbath? Congratulations. I do so too.

Exodus 31:17
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Where is there disagreement with what I said? I acknowledge there were the six days of creation, on what had been unformed, as it was said. I do not call that which had been unformed the earth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All of which amounts to lots of change over lots of time.

Not necessarily.

Your own guys said it did not change and that is the reason they had to come up with it was in a state of perfection and hund up the no change sign. But there were enormous forces which should have driven change over 350 million years and did not,

You keep claiming this.
Care to support it with evidence?

And it is not the only living fossil. so all these prove evolution and billions of years false.

It does not.