Creationism (con) vs Evolution (pro)

I do not understand Pro"s specation. Could he define his terms? Speciation within a created kind does not refute creationism. I will note here, this is not a false dichotomy, that only two logical positions are available. Evolution, or Special Creation. Arguing against one means arguing for the other. The Fossil Record Pro states, "So if you read the Noah story back into this observation, the antediluvian world must have been wall-to-wall trilobites, not to mention all the other animals in the other layers..." He must be dreaming. I make no sense of his words. I will now address the problems of the Cambrian. Virtually all phyla are found in the Cambrian, including vertebrae. What startles one is the fact that fossils found in the Cambrian has no evolutionary ancestors. Furthermore, no new body plans were discovered since. This is known as the Cambrian explosion. It is the biggest problem of evolutionists. From simple celled organisms, then highly complex creatures, which decreased in complexity, and then increased slowly in complexity over "geologic time." The fact that there are fossils of soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish is a contradiction to slow fossilization advocated and required by evolutionists. It is even a falsification of one of Darwin"s predictions. There is even fossilized ink. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...; http://news.bbc.co.uk... Chromosome fusion. Infor taken from http://creation.com...; http://creation.com... (I realize they may be too technical for some to understand, and note that I do not quote things I do not understand.) "1. The reputed fusion site is located in a peri-centric region with suppressed recombination and should exhibit a reasonable degree of tandem telomere motif conservation. Instead, the region is highly degenerate"a notable feature reported by a previous investigation. 2. In a 30 kb region surrounding the fusion site, there exists a paucity of intact telomere motifs (forward and reverse) and very few of them are in tandem or in frame. 3. Telomere motifs, both forward and reverse (TTAGGG and CCTAAA), populate both sides of the purported fusion site. Forward motifs should only be found on the left side of the fusion site and reverse motifs on the right side 4. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence is not unique to the purported fusion site, but found throughout the genome with 80% or greater identity internally on nearly every chromosome; indicating that it is some type of ubiquitous higher-order repeat. 5. No evidence of synteny with chimp for the purported fusion site was found. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence does not align to its predicted orthologous telomeric regions in the chimp genome on chromsomes 2A and 2B. 6. Queries against the chimp genome with the human alphoid sequences found at the purported cryptic centromere site on human 2qfus produced no homologous hits using two different algorithms (BLAT and BLASTN). 7. Alphoid sequences at the putative cryptic centromere site are diverse, form three separate sub-groups in alignment analyses, and do not cluster with known functional human centromeric alphoid elements." On to the problems with fusion. "Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site, a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. Based on the predicted model, thousands of intact motifs in tandem should exist. For the TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist, a normal human telomere would typically have 1667 to 2500." Too many unsubstantiated assumptions of mutations has to be made in order for fusion to work. In fact, there are so many problems with the fusion hypothesis that I might as well advocate naturally purple elephants pushing the planets in orbital eclipses. Pro"s claims that ERVs come from ancient viral infections are bogus. ERVs have function. For example, they control mice embryological development, promoter-sequences are derived from them. They initiate transcription. In fact, ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the genome. [1] Pro"s claims therefore falls through the floor. All the evidence that Pro has cited are really evidence for Creation. Both of us are arguing from the same set of data. The only things that differentiate us are our starting assumptions. These affect our conclusions. Pro"s basic assumptions is: That no supernatural acts can occur. No Creator had any influence on the earth. Time can be measured by "geological strata." The rate of change (Not that it does not change) does not fluctuate unless evidence to the contrary is presented. There are more, but I do not wish to list them here. Conclusion: Pro makes unsupportable assumptions that he cannot defend. Pro"s arguments have no weight. The fossil record actually supports Creation. The lack of a connection between chromosome 2 is evidence for a separate baramin. ERVs have a function not connected with viral infections. Pro"s arguments fail. Therefore. Vote Con. 1. http://creation.com...