new

[Thread title: "ToE = Dumb and Dumber"]

Quoting Sir Fred Doyle: "No matter how large the environment one considers, life 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 not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."

Do you evos get this logic? He's talking about the origin of life, but the random origin of a new body part is no different, at least in theory: If there are 10s of thousands of different pieces of anatomy in humans, for every 1 selectable part that arose in the right place at the right time, there must be literally thousands (or more like millions) of misfits for which selection would have to dispense with....either that or we should be seeing all sorts of weirdo, massively-freakish animals walking/swimming/crawling around.

[Then he/she rambles into the sunset with the "eye argument"]

[supersport explains the fossil record]

But anyway, as I said, evolutionists -- the geniuses they are -- equate size with how primitive a creature is. For years darwinists claimed that horses started out as a tiny dog-sized creature and then as they became more evolved -- ie..more complex -- they grew larger. Likewise they say the rat and the human had a common ancestor -- which obviously was a smallish rodent-type human. It was only as this creature became more evolved/complex that it grew in size. (Gotta love this logic, don't you?)

But let's move on to the geologic column: The basic story when it comes to fossils in the geologic column is that the lower strata is older than the higher stratas. And since the geologic column supposedly represents millions of years of Earth's history, then obviously the fossils in each of the layers must be the same age as the layer in which they are found. But what evolutionists like to point out is the progression from the most "simple" (ie...small) organisms, such as bacteria and worms -- to the most complex (ie..large) organisms -- such as vertebrates and mammals.

So, what they've evidently found in the fossil record is a progression from the small to the large, starting from the lower levels and working upwards.

So how do mixed nuts work into this? Glad you asked.

My wife bought a large can of mixed nuts the other day and I've been indulging in them. Of course, like most cans of mixed nuts, the ratio of peanuts to other nuts such as almonds, cashews and pecans is out of whack -- with far too many peanuts. As a result I noticed that shaking the can has a way of bringing the larger nuts to the top.

Voila!

Interestingly, it's this concept that seems quite plausible in regards to the geologic column; whenever the earth moves or the crust shifts or trembles, it could very well be that the smaller organisms (ie.."primitive") fall through the cracks and find themselves in lower strata more easily than larger organisms might. Same concept when water flows down through the earth: it's certainly more likely to drag smaller/"primitive" fossils downward than it is to drag larger fossils.

This might explain why single-celled organisms find their way to the lowest levels, followed by trilobites fish, crabs, snails, birds, small mammals, etc. This could give the impression of a neatly-sorted geologic column, no?

Why have I never heard this explanation from evolutionists?