Notices
Results 1 to 46 of 46
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By cs-comm

Thread: Fossil Evidence says evolution is false

  1. #1 Fossil Evidence says evolution is false 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
    "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
    of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
    molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
    insensibly different from zero"
    - Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

    "No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
    a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
    typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
    practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
    to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
    certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
    attempts. The same is true for living material"
    Ibid., p.148

    "The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
    chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
    (10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
    not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
    one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
    training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
    chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
    entirely out of court"
    Ibid., p.24

    "Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
    part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
    theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
    probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
    explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
    Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
    widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
    rather than scientific."
    Ibid., p.130

    "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
    out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
    - Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
    Press,Inc.) p.138

    "It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
    some of the observations that were not available at the time the
    paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
    does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
    information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
    may be rooted in human nature"
    - Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
    Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

    "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
    proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
    in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

    "Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
    been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
    sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
    of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

    "Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
    intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
    elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
    p.290

    "There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
    available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
    devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
    Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
    accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

    "In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
    'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
    evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
    nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
    p.293

    Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.

    Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

    Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
    the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].


    Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
    "The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
    Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

    Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

    "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140



    Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
    "The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
    Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

    They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.

    In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
    Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
    [The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Fossil Evidence says evolution is false 
    Forum Freshman cs-comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
    Can I say LIE loud enough?

    Read some of the articles form this website and you'll see why you're so very, very wrong.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
    molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
    insensibly different from zero"
    - Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

    "No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
    a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
    typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
    practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
    to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
    certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
    attempts. The same is true for living material"
    Ibid., p.148

    "The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
    chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
    (10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
    not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
    one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
    training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
    chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
    entirely out of court"
    Ibid., p.24

    "Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
    part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
    theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
    probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
    explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
    Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
    widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
    rather than scientific."
    Ibid., p.130
    Who could forget the good old "abiogenesis is to improbable to have accured" argument?

    1) It is assumed that the first enzyme is identical to a modern enzyme.

    2) Quote: "...in a* random trial...". Maybe for a single trial but what about a billion trials happening at the same time all over the world?

    3) Chemistry isn't random!

    *emphasis added

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
    out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
    - Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
    Press,Inc.) p.138
    By "genetic information" does Lee mean the gene pool of a species? Because a mutation always increases the diversity of a gene pool (increases the genetic information?).

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    "It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
    some of the observations that were not available at the time the
    paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
    does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
    information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
    may be rooted in human nature"
    - Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
    What "critical factual information" is this person talking about? I think you left the important part out. I also don't have to mention that this is from 1986...

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
    proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
    in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

    "Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
    been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
    sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
    of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
    Never been found to be in any sense the descendant or ancestor of any other sequence? Despite similarities exceding 99%? Seems pretty closly related to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    "Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
    intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
    elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
    p.290
    I have now idea what this author means by class. As for their claim about no transitional fossils being found, guess what: A LIE!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    "There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
    available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
    devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
    Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
    accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

    "In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
    'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
    evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
    nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
    p.293

    Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
    Read carefully. All post-modern species are transitional. In otherwords museams are overflowing with examples of transitional fossils.

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

    Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
    the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].


    Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
    "The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
    Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

    Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

    "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
    (phew....a lot of quotes)

    See the above Talk Origins link. I repeat: transitional fossils have been found!

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.
    Stop ghost, I'm laughing so hard I'm going to piss my pants. These supposed human footprints have been shown to be eroded dinosaur footprints again and again.

    Once more, I can't help but notice that most of your quotes are from thirty years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
    Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
    [The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
    That assumes that the first cell was identical to the modern cell. It also assumes that the first living organism was a cell. Neither of these claims are made by evolutionists. You're putting foul words into the mouths of scientists everywhere.


    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I'm not even going to bother reading this post. No offense, but anyone who thinks that the fossil record as it stands right now disproves evolution is either 1) extremely ignorant or 2) extremely dishonest. Usually it's both, and you can throw in "blinded by religion" in there as well. The fossil record backs up the ToE to an overwhelmingly accurate degree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    Well, ghost, it looks like you started this thread in the wrong sub-forum. I'll fix it for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Fossil Evidence says evolution is false 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements.
    [...]
    - Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
    Astronomers. Hoyle was a great astronomer, no doubt. However, he argued (insufficiently) against Evolution because he wished to promote a theory of off-Earth origin of species.

    "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
    out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
    - Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
    Press,Inc.) p.138
    I've no idea whether this is true or not. However, it contradicts the topic title, which is "Fossil Evidence says evolution is false". The reason scientists are not that concerned with what has been managed to be studied so far is that the fossil evidence, as well as genetic comparison across related species, has amply demonstrated that genetic information increases. Surprising as it may seem to you, the fact that genetic information only very rarely increases due to spot mutation is not a problem for a theory which a priori takes millions of years to work out.

    "It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
    some of the observations that were not available at the time the
    paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
    does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
    information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
    may be rooted in human nature"
    - Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
    Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
    Lets assume that that particular article does not go on to answer it's own question. The number of professional scientists who don't fully understand the scientific method beggars belief, sometimes. But the answer is "No scientific theory, no matter how widely accepted, is sufficient to answer all known observations or phenomena. The answer to the question, then, is "neodarwinism does not disappear because a better paradigm has not yet arrived to replace it."

    Let's now assume that the article does go on to describe a better theory than neodarwinism, for explaining biological diversity. Surely the Creationist literature is full of that theory, since it demolishes Evolution. But, ah, no. It is of course a fact that if Dr. Schwabe's theory involved God or Creationism, then there is no way in hell that he would have had his article published in Biochemical Sciences. In other words, what we have here is a Creationist jumping on the words of a professional scientist that appears to show some dissent from the Theory of Evolution, as if that alone proves the supremacy of Creationism. Try again.

    For the rest of it, I'm afraid that it's describing the "molecular analysis" of genetic material, talks about "hundreds" of examples etc. But it was 20 years ago. Every one of his examples may well have been explained in the time since then, we've even sequenced the human genome!

    Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
    Creationist literature that starts off with a false statement. The assumption appears to be that because the theory of evolution describes lots of small incremental changes, then the fossil record should show evidence of them all, therefore there would be hundreds of thousands of examples. This is a non-sequitur, I'm afraid, because the process of fossilisation is not linked to the process of speciation! There's no universal law that states that every species will be preserved in the fossil record! In fact the fossil record is known to be patchy in the extreme, and this was no less true in Darwin's day. He makes reference to it in the Origin, I believe.

    Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---
    True enough, but so what? Too many Creationists base arguments on the fact that the observations of speciation is impossible because it is buried in the mists of time. How does that even impinge on whether the theory is true or not? Despite what Dr Brown thinks, however, there is plenty of evidence which utterly disproves the Genesis account of both the Creation and the Flood. (If this is the same guy I'm thinking of, his "global flood" evidence utterly predates the appearance of Man on the planet, so it's irrelevant to the Bible in any case).

    Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
    the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
    Demonstrating the man's foresight and, frankly, genius. Very few scientists, even of the first rank, denoted each of the possible objections that their theory might have to face, but Darwin did. He was a man of high integrity, to whom all scientists should look as a role model.


    Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
    "The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
    Niles Eldredge is the co-author alongside the late Stephen J. Gould of the Punctuated Equilibria theory. Punctuated Equilibria is a theory of Evolution. It is a Darwinian theory of evolution. Dawkins lamented Gould and Eldredge having had their theory (with which he did not agree) promoted in the media as "anti-Darwinian". It was nothing of the sort, and Gould spent his life and work as a science explicator and as a promotor of Evolutionary Biology, to the extent of finally, prior to his death the other year, producing the standard textbook on the subject.

    Here's Gould himself (I've moved this extract from where it was)
    "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
    He wrote this because the Punctuated Equilibria theory is not a "gradualist" theory, at least to the extent that was believed by evolutionists at that time. Gould and Eldredge, in fact, produced a satisfactory explanatory theory for why there are gaps in the fossil record, with no prejudice to the standard Darwinian model.


    Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
    "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
    Another argument from the gaps. In fact, it sounds to me like he's also proposing a theory which explains the gaps, once again without reference to God or the Bible.

    Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
    Which therefore means Genesis was true, I suppose. Scarcely. The pro-Evolution argument has indeed been hamstrung by some textbooks over-illustrating filled with outright inaccurate drawings. Patterson is not interested in showing speculation or guesswork, but only the evidence that there is.

    Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
    "The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
    Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
    It's an opinion, sure. Thirty-four years ago. What are "ordinary temperatures", by the way? What does he consider "vanishingly small"? In any case, this is about the fundamental, first origin of Life, which Evolution does not purport to explain - only its development since that time.

    They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.
    If you find footprints of a specie in a stratum, but no bones, it prompts you to ask "is this really the footprint of this species? Or is it another species, for which there are bones?" It's palpable nonsense (rejected by the more intelligent Creationist) to believe that footprints are human and dinosaur in the same place, since the bones don't match it up. In any case, I believe the most famous "human/dinosaur" footprints were fakes, weren't they? Carved by opportunistic tourist-hunters.

    In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
    Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
    [The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
    But not a chemist, biochemist or biologist. He has made a rather large fallacy here on which to propose his analysis. "60,000 proteins in 100 different combinations" is the number of existing combinations that make living cells. But there could be practically an infinity of other combinations which also work, but which we don't happen to see in nature. That deals more than effectively with his bizarre 1 chance in 10<sup>4,478,296</sup>. And I emphasise once again that Fred Hoyle did not make these mathematical analyses in order to prove Genesis - he was an atheist, who hated the Bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Further on Hoyle: he did not reject the reality of evolution as displayed by the fossil record. He did question the character of abiogenesis, which is another matter entirely. He also questioned the mechanism of evolution, but again, not the fact of evolution as revealed by the fossil record. Indeed he appealed to that record to support his hypothesis. Using his quotation as part of an argument to prove the thread's title is either foolish or dishonest. Which are you ghost?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Come on, Ophiolite, let's not play that game. "Tell me, Prime Minister, are you an idiot or a liar?" We know ghost is a devout Bible-believer, but he has been misled by Creationist literature, and probably thought he had a valid point. Unfortunately for him, nobody had ever told him that gaps in the fossil evidence do not constitute "disproof" of Evolution. Neither, evidently, has he been taught to read something critically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Come on, Ophiolite, let's not play that game. "Tell me, Prime Minister, are you an idiot or a liar?"
    It is not a game: it is a valid application of rhetoric, designed to provoke a response.
    [On a side issue, if the Prime Minister in question is Tony Blair, then the answer is "Both".]
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    ghost ....has been misled by Creationist literature, and probably thought he had a valid point. ... Neither, evidently, has he been taught to read something critically.
    Consider this, which is more insulting to ghost? My brutal direct query casting him as a fool or a liar (which invites a response and a repudiation), or your post, patronising his education and talking of him in the third person (and thus ignoring him). Perhaps, you can tell us which, if any, bothered you the most ghost.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quite right. But I was hoping ghost would come here to defend himself.

    I don't agree that "asking the unanswerable question" is a valid technique in rhetoric, any more than sending junk mail marked "YOU ARE ALREADY A WINNER!" is a valid technique in marketing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I don't agree that "asking the unanswerable question" is a valid technique in rhetoric, any more than sending junk mail marked "YOU ARE ALREADY A WINNER!" is a valid technique in marketing.
    Until ghost returns we are left with these side issues. I think it is a valid technique, because in both instances it works. Is it a fair technique? Is it an ethical technique? These are different questions and, of course, I ask them rhetorically. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I would not go so far as the original post in saying that fossil evidence disproves evolution, but I am still dubious that fossils prove anything other than a lot of plants and animals have lived on earth and gone extinct while others have been around for a long time.

    To best of my investigation and reading, I have not seen a "chain of evidence" which shows that we had this animal in a specific family which evolved into a set of specific genera of animals which, in turn, became specific species of animals.

    I want to see a family tree of plants or animals which names names of plants or animals and shows antecedants and decendants which actually show transitions though taxonomy designations. I just want to know what plants and animals "evolved" into what other plants and animals.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Then I suggest you obtain a University textbook on either palaeontology or taxonomy, or at least go find one in a library to refer to. Someone else undoubtedly has a better idea of exactly which one to get. There are undoubtedly books crammed with minutely detailed illustrative descriptions of both fossils and living creatures which point out where and why particular features indicate familial relationship to other similar creatures.

    When we deal with fossils, we are not really in the realm of discussing precisely what a particular new feature did for the creature or how exactly it enabled the specimen to survive, or how the cells morphed to form it. What palaeontologists are looking for are those features which will help to determine precisely where in a genealogical tree a particular creature will sit.

    You may well argue that this is kind of arguing in a circle - that the theory of evolution is assumed by the palaeontologists, so the features they find are not proof of the theory of evolution. No, indeed. Of course, they are long, long past generally trying to find proof of evolution, since the evident nature of the family relationships makes further searching for proof quite futile. On the other hand, there are a great number of things that you could find when minutely examining every one of a thousand different physical features on an animal, which would instantly disprove evolution - and yet not one has been found.

    The thing about evolution is that it is not required to provide further proof - those who know fossils and animals in general to a great degree, never entertain any doubts. The thing is that every new innovation in going beneath the surface of previous knowledge has so far fit entirely within the paradigm, and not one has even remotely dislodged it.

    You examine fossils for features. Features which are common to a lot of species are found in all the antecedents. Features which are unique to one family are not in ancestral species but only in the ancestors of that one family, and not in the other (for example dog features and cat features.)

    You search for fossils in sediment which has been lain down continuously for millions of years, and what you find is the more ancestral species are deeper down, because they were further in the past and therefore laid down before the later, offspring species which lie above them. (Sometimes it goes the other way, and other evidence will always confirm that the rock was turned on its back through some upheaval. What you never see is higgledy-piggledy, random arrangement of ancestral and later fossils in all layers.)

    You turn to gene analysis, with knowledge of chromosomes. Chromosome analysis follows the same pattern as outright visible features. Getting to the DNA it is the same. If there were some extrernal entity which simply gave each creature whatever features it required, there'd be chopping and changing, different creatures would have a different set of "off the peg" features from other similar creatures, and there would be no way of tracing a development over time. But this is not what we find - what we find is only certain features in common, that lineage of features is traceable, and never does any feature re-appear in a line that had been eliminated previously in all lines.

    The exact mechanisms for morphology, how genes work, how the cells do what they do during the growth of an organism, these are all under constant investigation, and the end is very definitely not yet. But the principle tenet of Evolution is that all Life is related, in a tree-like structure - and this is confirmed time and time again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    13
    and just to think we all evolved from a single cell...maybe planton...then into more cells...a fish perhaps...then a bird...then a flying monkey...then an ape...to a man...evolution is amazing.

    dloigh
    its not that i suck at spelling...its that i just don't care
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by mark717

    excellent cartoon
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Then tell me, why would god create a man from scratch when he has an ape?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Then tell me, why would god create a man from scratch when he has an ape?
    this is a string of words masquerading as a question and pretending to have meaning
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    I thought it was a perfectly good question. Man and ape are almost genetically identical, why would he not use ape DNA?

    If he did he would be the missing link and the animals would have evolved into one another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i assume that's why this thread is in the pseudo-science section

    god the creator is not a scientific explanation of how man came to be on earth, seeing as it invokes supernatural means

    if evolution can give a perfectly adequate explanation using natural phenomena of how man evolved from apes, why invoke the supernatural ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Just because I am guiding him into the right direction doesn't mean I think so myself :x why do you have to make that assumption? I have more posts then you! -insert grrr smiley here-

    I'm simply stating that no matter if you believe in creation or evolution, evolution is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    I have more posts then you!
    i assume this is relevant ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    I have more posts then you!
    i assume this is relevant ?
    Well of course it is. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    *shrug* - there's no need to reply to a rhetorical question
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    *shrug* - there's no need to reply to a rhetorical question
    Except for the one being questioned. Atleast a "probably" or a "that's totally profound" I want from him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Except for the one being questioned. Atleast a "probably" or a "that's totally profound" I want from him.
    sorry, you lost me here - what is "probably" or "that's totally profound" supposed to be the answer to ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Then tell me, why would god create a man from scratch when he has an ape?
    this is a string of words masquerading as a question and pretending to have meaning
    We forget things, do we?

    I asked the persuasive question, Ophiolite didn't even ask a question, thus didn't use a question sign.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    despite the question mark i still have a problem seeing your statement as a question + i don't see how "probably" or "that's totally profound" could be seen as answers to it (unless i was trying to be sarcastic)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    despite the question mark i still have a problem seeing your statement as a question + i don't see how "probably" or "that's totally profound" could be seen as answers to it (unless i was trying to be sarcastic)
    I must agree that "probably" would be a funny answer, infact I would like that answer pretty much!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    probably :wink:
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967


    So is everything said in this topic, perhaps someone would post the currently accepted view on the subject here with some interesting new facts to add with that?
    I could fetch an ex. of an evolution book at the library some day and post it. I'll see if I can.

    Cya l8er alligator. That sounded childish, sorry. On topic though?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Then tell me, why would god create a man from scratch when he has an ape?
    For the same reason He buried the dinosaur bones.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by The Original Poster
    "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
    of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
    molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
    insensibly different from zero"
    - Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
    You could just as easily argue that it's impossible for technology to progress because the vast majority of new ideas and thoughts that come out of people's minds are not improvements over the old ideas, but usually digressions.

    Yet, all it takes is one time for a single person to have a new, better idea, and then furthermore to develop it, and technology is changed forever.

    Mind you, it's not enough just to have the idea. It must be developed. I'm sure many technologies would have existed sooner, but the person who thought of them didn't build them.


    -------------------------

    Now to tie this reasoning to evolution:

    The vast majority of mutations are digressions, but all it takes is for one offspring one time to show a new, better, genetic trait, and that trait may exist on earth forever.

    It's not enough just for it to be born, of course. It must go on to have offspring, and the improved genetic trait must be passed on via DNA to that offspring. But once you have about 50-60 examples of the new DNA out there (or how ever much is enough for them to breed exclusively with one another) it's here forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Then tell me, why would god create a man from scratch when he has an ape?
    For the same reason He buried the dinosaur bones.
    He didn't bury them, it's the meteor dust etc. that buries it.
    That can be scientifically proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Then tell me, why would god create a man from scratch when he has an ape?
    For the same reason He buried the dinosaur bones.
    He didn't bury them, it's the meteor dust etc. that buries it.
    That can be scientifically proven.
    don't forget the action of earthworms - they displace a lot of soil
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    But even then some fossils get exposed naturally and the scribes had to work that into the bible somehow, you know, dragons, beasts, etc.

    Hey, instead of fooling evolutionists, maybe God wants to fool creationists even more. He's tricky.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    but then again creationists are like their god - deceitful
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Imagine one human, or god living in 2 billion years. Then think of all the beercans he must have left. You would think they would've left some sort of trace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    but then again creationists are like their god - deceitful
    Creationists are aptly named, if they want evidence of a young Earth, then they create it.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Imagine one human, or god living in 2 billion years. Then think of all the beercans he must have left. You would think they would've left some sort of trace.
    are you implying that god is an alcoholic ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Imagine one human, or god living in 2 billion years. Then think of all the beercans he must have left. You would think they would've left some sort of trace.
    I had to respond to this.
    Why would God have to leave physical traces? What, you think God defecates?

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    but then again creationists are like their god - deceitful
    Creationists are aptly named, if they want evidence of a young Earth, then they create it.

    What evidence? I've never seen evidence for a young Earth.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What evidence? I've never seen evidence for a young Earth.
    well, for instance creationists make a good stab at trying to prove carbon dating wrong so they can keep their cherished notion of a young earth

    i suppose that's evidence of some kind if you want it to be
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What evidence? I've never seen evidence for a young Earth.
    Go ahead and suggest any scientific evidence of an old Earth and they will throw it right back at you as evidence for a young Earth or show you where you made a mistake. Its their modus operandi. The creation of evidence is not exactly what I meant. They are too busy creating rebuttals or stories countering scientific evidence.

    Example: Fossils of marine animals found at high altitudes....evidence of an ancient sea, some tectonics and voila, millions of years for that to take place, right? No, that is evidence of the global flood in Genesis a few thousand years ago.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Geologists believe the last Ice Age ended like 10,000 years ago or so. A raising of the water levels by that much would be pretty similar to the flood. It still doesn't explain everything in a tidy little theory.

    I agree, however, that there's no guaruntee that the continental drift took as long to happen as the continued drift is taking now. It may have been going faster for a while there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    No no no no, the devil did it to test your faith, now all you nonbelievers are going TO HELL
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Wonder how much energy you could take from those godly floods... And why did he just close the earth, not the whole factory? After all the other things would've been pretty unimportant without humans, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    No no no no, the devil did it to test your faith, now all you nonbelievers are going TO HELL
    You know what's funny? If God does exist, and I believe he does I'm going to hell because I'm not baptized, or so some people believe.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Your damed if you do, and your damed if you don't. You might as well have a lay-in this sunday then :-D .
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •