[blukatzen]

News article here.

[Armageddon]

One thing that always gets me about evolution is the lack of fossil remains that show this gradual change from one species to another. And, why can't they find a giraffe with a neck that shows the process of it getting taller ? The deeper archaeologists dig, the more bare the earth is. Where are all the fossils ? They find one skull of a monkey and they claim it's the missing link. Heck, they find dinosaurs fully intact, but they can't find one fossil of a species changing ? I have read where some archaeologists say the the fossil record show humans just appearing. That sounds sorta familiar.

[Bas]

you've been watching too much "heroes"

[blukatzen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'y')ou've been watching too much "heroes"

[Omaronim]

First of all, the process of fossilization takes time since you are replacing the bone parts with minerals. Second when archaeologist find fossils they usually find lots of them in that area because it isn't like all bones become fossils. I've heard it referred to as a tiny window to the past meaning that it is just a little time frame, a little chunk of a certain area. And I'm sorry if this is confusing as I'm a tad inebriated.

[smallpoxgirl]

Human evolution is going backwards seems to me. Instead of cheetahs eating the weak, we've got the the weak suing the able for millions of dollars under ADA.

[Armageddon]

So first came the big bang that started everything. Something blew up and now there is an earth that rotates the exact amount of distance from the sun to allow humans to exist without freezing or burning to death, and this sun puts off life giving energy. And the atmosphere has the exact balance of oxygen , nitrogen, carbon dioxide to allow life to exist on earth. Then somehow trees miraculously take in co2 and turn out o2 for humans and other species to breath to live. And somehow the earth provides food for these species to eat to live. And then h20 is formed for these living things to drink to live. All this occurred because something blew up. That's like blowing up a library and having books fall from the sky and landing on shelves in alphabetical order.

[Armageddon]

Then these species starting evolving into other species without any fossil remains showing these gradual changes. Just imagine how long a certain species would have to be around before it morphed into something else. For instance, the human race as we know, going back to he Egyptians, the Aztecs, and a few other really old civilizations can be found that date back a few thousand years. So after 3,000-4,000 years we have 6.5 billion people and nobody has evolved into anything else yet. When we dig into the earth, we can trace things back to the dinosaur time, which is millions of years ago. Now, in millions of years from now, do you think that humans of today will leave fossils ? You better believe it !!!. Species can adapt to the environment, but they cannot change from one to another. Evolution is totally ludicrous and archaeology backs this up.

[hubbertspeak7777777]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', 'S')o first came the big bang that started everything. Something blew up and now there is an earth that rotates the exact amount of distance from the sun to allow humans to exist without freezing or burning to death, and this sun puts off life giving energy. And the atmosphere has the exact balance of oxygen , nitrogen, carbon dioxide to allow life to exist on earth. Then somehow trees miraculously take in co2 and turn out o2 for humans and other species to breath to live. And somehow the earth provides food for these species to eat to live. And then h20 is formed for these living things to drink to live. All this occurred because something blew up. That's like blowing up a library and having books fall from the sky and landing on shelves in alphabetical order.

[I_Like_Plants]

Holy Darwin's Finches, scientists have discovered that species radiation happens with humans too.

And that 2nd to last paragraph is correct about European Jews, they had huge families. They predated on all around them and procreated like crazy - the trend only reversed starting about 50-60 years ago. And they are genetically unique, hence all the Ashkenazim-characteristic diseases.

[Armageddon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hubbertspeak7777777', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', 'S')o first came the big bang that started everything. Something blew up and now there is an earth that rotates the exact amount of distance from the sun to allow humans to exist without freezing or burning to death, and this sun puts off life giving energy. And the atmosphere has the exact balance of oxygen , nitrogen, carbon dioxide to allow life to exist on earth. Then somehow trees miraculously take in co2 and turn out o2 for humans and other species to breath to live. And somehow the earth provides food for these species to eat to live. And then h20 is formed for these living things to drink to live. All this occurred because something blew up. That's like blowing up a library and having books fall from the sky and landing on shelves in alphabetical order.

[Armageddon]

Silent on Life’s Origin

However, fossil evidence fails completely to tell us that life evolved the way scientists claim. The facts, the proofs, are missing.

The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

Decades passed. But the evidence refused to be forthcoming. Later, A. C. Seward admitted that the fossil record “tells us nothing of the origin of life.” And to this very day, the situation is the same. True, at times there are sensational announcements by journalists hungry for a headline that the creation of life in the laboratory is imminent. But even if that happened, it would only show that there had to be a Creator, that life does not come into existence by itself.

The fact is that the fossil record remains totally silent about the supposed evolution of microscopic life. A college textbook acknowledges: “We still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution

[Andrew_S]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', 'N')ow, in millions of years from now, do you think that humans of today will leave fossils ? You better believe it !!!. Species can adapt to the environment, but they cannot change from one to another. Evolution is totally ludicrous and archaeology backs this up.

[Andrew_S]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', '
')The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', ' ')A college textbook acknowledges: “We still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution

[Armageddon]

The "Burst" of Complex Life Forms

The fossil record's first testimony than carries any conviction is in what geologists call the cambrian layers of rock. Before that time the record of the rocks shows unaltered beds for untold ages. But in those older layers, any supposed fossils are rare. Indeed, their validity is hotly disputed among scientists themselves.

But with the Cambrian rocks, fossils burst forth in sudden profusion, in wide variety, highly specialized and very complex. Silent for so long, for most of the record in fact, their star witness, the fossil record, suddenly becomes a chatterbox !. I have to ask myself, " Did I have laryengitis all that time previously, or was it I had nothing to tell ? " I think of thise words of Simpson, who refers this sudden "explosion" of myriads of fossils as " this major mystery of the history of life "

But let us even grant evolutionists the "spontaneous generation" of life that they cannot establish in the fossil record, nor duplicate in laboratories. Grant them the first speck of life that they cannot trace. Grant them also the fantastic advances from that first microscopic life to the sudden bursting forth of thousands upon thousands of highly specialized forms of life in the Cambrian rocks. With all that granted to them, can they look at the fossil record and at least get some answers on how later forms of life supposedly evolved ?

When land plants came into being, the fossil record was not silent but was chattering about them. Yet, the fossil record reveals absolutely no "primitive" types as their ancestors. As one authority suggests evolution believers must believe that those supposed ancestors had existed.

Also, there are no fossils of "primitive" insects. Insects appear suddenly in the fossil record, highly devoloped, and in great numbers, truly a "burst" of insect life in complicated forms. Yet we are told that they must have been evolving for tens of millions of years before then. But what is the basis for saying that ?

There is no basis for that assumption- none. No fossils of all those assumed prelimanary stages are to be found. As the 1974 Encyclopedia Brittania confirms: The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects ". And the only reason that such a long time is given in the development of insects is the evolution theory demands it. So evolutionists obligingly supply it.

[PenultimateManStanding]

You can believe what you like, Armageddon. The Cambrian Explosion came after more than a billion years of life in the seas.

[Armageddon]

The Record Is Against Evolution

Without question, the claimed evolution of all these major groups of living things is filled with incredible gaps. Time and again the story is the same: the fossil record is silent on ancestors. In a few cases, this might be understandable. But is it not more than a coincidence when this silence happens in the case of every major category of living things?

Even Darwin long ago lamented the gaps in the fossil record. In fact, he said it was good grounds for rejecting his theory. But he defended his position by impeaching his own star witness. He claimed that the fossil record had been altered, was incomplete, and that many living organisms simply did not leave fossils, particularly those without hard parts. Many evolutionists today rely on the same excuses.

Yet, the truth is that there are many beds of unaltered rock. And there are many fossils of ‘soft parts,’ including skin, worms, jellyfish and feathers. Also, why is the fossil record so full in regard to “completed” life forms, and so empty on the “evolving” stages?

I am compelled to conclude that few sets of facts argue so eloquently against evolution as the fossil record.

Mutations are claimed as evidence for evolution. But are they really? The case for them was energetically argued by an acquaintance of mine.

But before reporting our discussion, I want to mention a practice of his that is similar to the ‘only-the-stupid-don’t believe-evolution’ approach. He is a biology major fresh out of college. His speech is heavily saturated with such foreboding words as homozygous, heterozygous, translocations, inversions, haploid, diploid, polyploid, mitosis, meiosis, deoxyribonucleic acid, and the like.

It was obvious that he reaped satisfaction from the use of such ‘fifty-cent’ words, using them as a sort of mental bullying. However, vocabularies of intimidation do not prove a theory. If anything, they make it more suspect.

[blukatzen]

Hi. I am Blu’s husband and she is letting me post on this since I read all the anti-evolution stuff on this thread.

So a creationist Bible believer on the one hand has the opinions of many thousands of scientists and many life times of scientific observations and museums full of evidence for evolution. On the other hand the creationist has an unsupported story written by Stone Age or Bronze Age shepherds about magic fruits, flying soulless beings with flaming swords, vegetarian lions, people made of mud, and a talking snake. There are also many internal contradictions regarding the plurality of the divinities or “elohem”, the origins of the breeding partners of Cain etc… So faced with science on the one hand and this Bronze Age comic book-like story Creationists go with the story about the talking snake.

So the next story about Noah must to them also be true. How the children of Noah hand carried the kangaroos, pangolins, poisonous snakes, 80,000 species of beetles and all the other animals to the Ark. Of course Noah’s family traveled to every corner and cave on the land surface of the world on foot to gather the animals since of course the Noah’s ark had not yet been built. Then they stuffed maybe 30 million species into this boat that had only one small window. Then after the flood Noah’s immediate family returned all of these 30 million species back to where they came from as evidenced by the fact that the species are now where their fossils were also found, evidently from before the flood.

To top it off they then forgot all about the continents of North America, South America, Australia and Antarctica. Or perhaps their God Yahweh forgot about these places since he supposedly wrote this book. It is also a wonder that the divine being who supposedly wrote this Bible was so ignorant regarding not only geography but was totally ignorant regarding science, technology and even herbal cures. Not very “all knowing” if you ask me.

So why do creationists so vociferously believe and try to force on the rest of us the story with the magic figs, mud people and talking snake; but they do not ever defend the next stories like the one about Noah, or Jonah being swallowed and living inside a giant fish, the flat Earth, the Sun orbiting the Earth and all the rest?

[Armageddon]

How Complete Is the Record?

9 However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “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.”7

10 The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”8

11 Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

12 Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”12

13 After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

14 What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

15 Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”15