No Salamander Evolution Evidence, Past or Present

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 4-16-2015 | Frank Sherwin

[HiTech RedNeck]

And you didn’t even address what I said, at all.

Your approach in fact is a mirror of what your group is accusing YECs to do, namely to holler “BLASPHEMY! We do not need to hear any more!”

If in fact it IS to holler such, you might try not to ape it, monkey man.

[MrB]

What the hell are you people. Some kind of genetically engineered super humans

---

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

[BrandtMichaels]

Funny, I don’t recall ever seeing any of this evidence, maybe you can post something to defend your claims? Something more than conjecture though please b/c I’ve read evolutionary claims like this before and they simply are not written like other scientific documents. They are full of guessing, conjecture, and dead-ends.

There’s no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arising from another major group [i.e. macro-evolution]. Species are observed only going extinct, but we have zero evidence of any coming into existence. No experiments, no observations, zilch nada. So, yes I agree, one side is offering up one big gigantic bizarre lie.

Also it is thanks to information theory that you and I can debate this. But did you know that Shannon’s Information Theory trumps the lies of evolutionary theories?

Here’s a little tidbit of TOI:

“Checking against the three necessary conditions (NC) for identifying information:

NC 1: A number of symbols are required to establish information. This first condition is satisfied because we have various different symbols worldwide.

NC 2: The sequence of the symbols must be irregular. This condition is also satisfied, as there are no regularities or periodic patterns.

NC 3: The symbols must be written in some recognizable order, such as drawn, printed, chiseled, or engraved in rows, columns, circles, or spirals.”

Now consider DNA as proof positive for God, you see one must have an super-intelligent being to design such intricate code, code that without the computer we would never be able to begin unlocking the secrets embedded within the double helix [twin spirals].

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Actually, the original is wrong on a further level – which I suppose technically classes it as Not Even Wrong. It mis-identifies the starting animal in the linear Descent of Man image as a chimp, and so infers that there are millions of them – although that number is off by an order of magnitude or two. This is wrong. That starting animal, the common ancestor, is not alive today, there are not millions of them around. Even that creature is dead along with the transitional forms connecting it to us.

(source)

[Salamander]

I prefer “barbaric” but primitive will do.

:)

[trisham]

Agreed. God is everywhere we look.

[Salamander]

Hey

[Salamander]

Meh.

Rumors.

[Salamander]

Habitually smug.

Just wait until the Great Amphibian Revolution.

They’ll never see it coming.

Kneel before Newt!

[musicman]

" No Salamander Evolution Evidence,
Past or Present"



Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[Salamander]

;D

[Salamander]

“although “weird compared to anything today,” is still very much a salamander”

I could have gotten a worse review.

:)

[trisham]

:)

[Salamander]

I don’t look a day over a million.

[Salamander]

Why fiddle with perfection?

[catnipman]

“Years ago, I thought of “engineered adaptability” as a phrase to describe the variations that one observes when a habitat changes and the animals have to adapt. I have no idea if it was an original phrase or not.”

Don’t know about originality of “engineered adaptability” either, but the concept is quite correct: that’s exactly what’s going on. The adaptability of organisms to their environment is actually a form of histerius, and as with all feedback systems it is necessary to build in limits at the start regarding the maximum degree possible for adaptability to the environment: there are no infinitely adaptable systems.

It is this simple, built-in adaptability that Evolutionists like to (grossly incorrectly) pretend is the driving force that created life from dirt by the magical accretion of vast amounts of concentrated information (which is actually the essence of life) in the face of inherent entropic forces that exist throughout the universe and which ordinarily cause EVERYTHING in the universe to wind down like broken watches and/or disintegrate like mountains pounded by eons of rainfall.

(Interestingly enough, it’s these entropic forces that make discovery of a powerful, nearly infinitely rechargeable battery impossible. There ARE no batteries in nature, living or otherwise: everything in nature consumes fuel to produce energy (inherently producing useless waste heat in the process) until no more fuel is available. And because no rechargeable batteries exist in nature, we are unable to make good ones, since all we do is discover that which already exists. We’ve been working on batteries a few hundred years and are only marginally ahead of the original lead-acid battery, whereas our ability to accrete information is remarkable.)

[Salamander]

Stealing that.

[MeshugeMikey]

PLEASE DO!

Any other critters you might like to see blinking..let me know!

[Salamander]

Well, snakes, obviously.

It’s weird to live with creatures who have no eyelids.

[tet68]

You don’t look a day over 100,000 besides
it’s not how you feel but how you look
and you look Maarrvelllous!