The Greatest Story Ever Told.

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places. "

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p. 19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. "

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

". . . Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils . . . I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. "

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat. "

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear . . . 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. "

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (p. 206)

"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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution). " (p. 292)

Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

"Darwin. . . was embarrassed by the fossil record. . . we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, . . . some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. "

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? . . . The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. "

Luther D. Sunderland, Creationist
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. . . . The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. "

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51

"The family trees which adorn our text books are based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. "


Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Evolution's Erratic Pace"
Natural History, May, 1977, p. 13

". . . if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record. "

Lord Solly Zuckerman, MA, MD, DSc (Anatomy)
Prof. of anatomy, University of Birmingham
Chief scientific advisor, United Kingdom
Beyond the Ivory Tower
Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p 64

"The entire hominid (a so-called 'ape-man' fossil) collection know today would barely cover a billiard table. . . Ever since Darwin. . . preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man. "

John Reader
"Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?
New Scientist, March 26, 1981, pp. 802-805

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin. "

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans -- of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings -- is, to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. "

Dr. Lyall Watson
"The Water People"
Science Digest, May 1982, p 44.

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. . . As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence. . . "

William R. Fix
The Bone Peddlers (Macmillan, 1984), pp. 150

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib. . . The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. "

Dr. Tim White
Evolutionary anthropologist
University of California at Berkeley
New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199

". . . not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments. . . "

Greg Kerby
From an address to the Biology Teachers
Association of South Australia, 1976

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's Homo habilis skulls, he (Richard Leakey) added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination, made of plaster of paris,' thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to. "

Richard Leakey (Son of Louis Leakey)
Director of National Museums of Kenya, Africa
The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, p. 3

"The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing. "

Albert W. Mehlert, Creationist and Former
Evolutionist & paleoanthropology researcher
"Lucy - Evolution's Solitary Claim for Ape/Man"
Creation Research Society Quarterly,
Vol 22, No. 3, (Dec 1985), p. 145

"In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which are based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity. . . by and large, written by authors with a formal academic background. . . Prominent among them were On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz, The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris. . . " (p. 283)

"Yet the tendency for individual paleontologists to trace human history directly back to their own fossil finds has persisted to the present day. " (p. 285)

"So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear cut scientific picture of human evolution. " (p. 285)

Dr. R. Martin, Senior Research Fellow
Zoological Society of London
"Man is Not an Onion"
New Scientist, Aug 4, 1977

"The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate. "

Francisco Ayala, Ph. d
Assoc Professor of Genetics, U of California
"Evolutionary theory under fire"
Science, Nov 21, 1980. p 883-887

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "

Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former:
President Biological Society of Strassbourg,
Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum,
Director of Research at the
French National Centre of Scientific Research
The Advo...

cool story bro

I had a beef rice bowl today. I also ate smoked-salmon rolls. My tummy thanked me.

Originally posted by amolv06
I had a beef rice bowl today. I also ate smoked-salmon rolls. My tummy thanked me.

Fish isn't meat so you had smoked chicken rolls ok.

I'm about to have chicken and rice in a wrap... does that count?

@ dasa.

Seriously, take it somewhere else, You're spouting drivel that's
been debunked so many times and so completely.
We aren't even going to take you or it seriously.

If you were actually interested in proper debate and learning, then I
(and I suspect others) would be more than happy to show you where
you are going wrong.

But you're not, you just want to preach at us.

You don't understand what you're talking about, and you refuse to
listen to what people say, and you're posting theistic drivel in the
science forum.

We are just going to mock and ridicule you.

Mercilessly.

Have a nice day ;-p

Originally posted by googlefudge
@ dasa.

Seriously, take it somewhere else, You're spouting drivel that's
been debunked so many times and so completely.
We aren't even going to take you or it seriously.

If you were actually interested in proper debate and learning, then I
(and I suspect others) would be more than happy to show you where
you are going wrong.

But you're n ...[text shortened]... um.

We are just going to mock and ridicule you.

Mercilessly.

Have a nice day ;-p

I hear everything and understand everything and it is clear that conscious life coming from matter is absurd.

Conscious life has never come from matter.

Cannot come from matter.

Will not come from matter.

Will never come from matter.

And defending that it does is simply dishonest and foolish.

Originally posted by Dasa
I hear everything and understand everything and it is clear that conscious life coming from matter is absurd.

Conscious life has never come from matter.

Cannot come from matter.

Will not come from matter.

Will never come from matter.

And defending that it does is simply dishonest and foolish.

It doesn't 'come from matter' it's made of matter.

You, and every other known life form, is made out of matter.

Atoms and chemicals.

You're like those nutters who advertise stuff as being natural because it contains no chemicals...

And no, you ignore everything, and understand nothing.

And most of all.

Your ideas are not science.

and never will be.


whackjob.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It doesn't 'come from matter' it's made of matter.

You, and every other known life form, is made out of matter.

Atoms and chemicals.

You're like those nutters who advertise stuff as being natural because it contains no chemicals...

And no, you ignore everything, and understand nothing.

And most of all.

Your ideas are not science.

and never will be.


whackjob.

Consciousness comes from the soul - not matter.

Create some consciousness please with your matter.

You cannot.

Its called the big bluff........that life comes from matter.

Originally posted by Dasa
Consciousness comes from the soul - not matter.

Create some consciousness please with your matter.

You cannot.

Its called the big bluff........that life comes from matter.

Actually you can, it's called "pregnancy".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually you can, it's called "pregnancy".

And conception is the beginning of pregnancy.

pregnancy means you have conceived.

Conception is when the soul enters the womb by way of the particle of semen and mixes with the ovum.

At this point the soul (life) allows the matter to take shape.

The soul is the living principle directing the matter to grow and become the baby.

The baby is not life.

The soul within the baby is the life.

No soul and no baby.

Therefore life comes from life.

I guess that makes my pubicle-sack somewhat like a death camp, because I killed MILLIONS of little souls in an ultra-explosive fashion from there last night. Millions of them. And it was goooood.

Come on, you know that's not enough detail amolv...........were you eating a hamburger at the same time while watching the footy? I'd call that the triple play.

Originally posted by amolv06
I guess that makes my pubicle-sack somewhat like a death camp, because I killed MILLIONS of little souls in an ultra-explosive fashion from there last night. Millions of them. And it was goooood.

Jesus, you made me think, for a quasi-second.

Maybe there is this huge autonomous thing, and the big bang was his semen exploding into chaos. Maybe our 'minds' and 'spirits, like little DNA spermen, were a resultant of the ultimate orgasm for the deity God, and we go about our daily business trying to fill a woman, as sperm do?

Well, it was for only a quasi-second, but I enjoyed the thought.

-m.

Originally posted by Dasa
I hear everything and understand everything

You don't even understand how deeply imbecilic you yourself are.

Go away. Go shout this drivel on the corner of some street until a bobby knows you off your soap box. Stop posting your mental diarrhoea to these forums.

You are not more intelligent, wise, knowledgable and honest than all of us. You are not even more intelligent, wise, knowledgable or honest than even the worst of us. You are the dregs of this forum both mentally and ethically. Your over-estimation of your own understanding only makes you sound more like a clod of cow-dung every time you post.

You are not wanted here. You are not wanted anywhere. You have nothing of value to add to this forum, the Hindu religion, your home town, or the world. All you do is make yourself and your Krishna buddies even more hated. If you had the slightest idea of the results you are getting you would shut your gob, but you are obviously too stupid to understand even that.

In short: go away. Forever.

Richard

Mods: pull this if you wish, but realise that most posters here agree with the contents, even if perhaps not with the tone.