The Creationists' Nightmare

[Undeceived]

The "I don't know, therefore God" stance isn't the best one to take.

Evolutionist: "I can't find the scientific proof yet, but until then I will believe there is some."

For every 'God of the Gaps' there is a 'Naturalism of the Gaps' to match. We haven't found 99.9% of the fossil record, but people still hold out for naturalistic solutions to life. They may not ever appear. Both sides have to assume a stance, and either one could easily accuse the other of lacking proof. Evolution is a history and response theory, meaning it moulds to the closest naturalistic solution, rather than being confirmed by fairly-drawn evidence. Every time a contradiction comes up, scientists alter the theory to include another yet-to-be-proven assertion. Much of the 'evidence' you see is really criteria. Evolutionists need the earth to be old, so they use long half-life techniques. They know all energy came from one source and one beginning, so they formulate a "Big Bang." How many discoveries in science were obtained by an objective baseboard? We look at the universe and try to figure out how it works by observing it. We can't study the laws governing the universe, and we can't get outside for an objective, unfiltered view. When we use a microscope to study another microscope, we are limited. Knowledge is always at net zero. We explain the natural with our opinion of the natural (wherever that came from) and dismiss God as soon as we find he doesn't fit into the little touchable box labeled "nature". Objectivism, or Absolute Truth, requires a transcending standard. God is the only transcending standard humans know about. Not only does he have grounds to be considered, but the existence of a subjective reality indicates the existence of an objective one--therefore he should be considered, and deeply.

Well if anything its for evolution.

People look at the platypus and see two things: unused organs and transitional fossil potentiality. The presence of unused organs (Ev: "vestigial structures") is a weak argument. They may have served a purpose in that very organism in the past. Pre-Flood (Pre-Cambrian) atmosphere was much different than our current environment. Air pressure, humidity and oxygen levels allowed for longer lives and larger animals, for example. Then there’s the transitional argument. The platypus is not transitional. The only difference between ancient fossils and contemporary platypuses is their teeth. Science has never claimed the platypus to be a link between mammals and birds. Talkorigins says, "Anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals."

The platypus is a problem for evolution because it requires separate sets of mutations to reach the same point. According to Wikipedia they branched from the mammalian echidnas, but “the sex chromosomes of the platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.” It also has reptilian genes associated with egg fertilization. This would be labeled convergent evolution, and convergent evolution just muddies the water. As if it wasn’t hard enough to come by bird and reptile traits once, the platypus has arrived at nearly identical traits via a different route in just a few million years.