Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"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.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. 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 Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"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?" -Charles Darwin
To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)
"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)
Originally posted by RJHindsHa! What a steaming turd. I'm glad I dropped by to see you embarass yourself.
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is n ...[text shortened]... s". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)
Spontaneous reproduction
What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
Organ development
•How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
•Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
•How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.
The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.
http://www.creationtoday.org/creationist-challenge/
Originally posted by RJHindsHow much time do you figure you spend each day being an insufferable bore?
Spontaneous reproduction
What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some ...[text shortened]... me with such details; my mind is made up.
http://www.creationtoday.org/creationist-challenge/
Originally posted by RJHindsYou raise some good points. How would you go about proving your theory of life's origins?
Spontaneous reproduction
What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some ...[text shortened]... me with such details; my mind is made up.
http://www.creationtoday.org/creationist-challenge/
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's a good one. Denying sonhouse belief would be to deny the existance of god.
Because GOD told me so, I believe would be his main proof.
And this is a solid fool proof that evolution is the fact, the only fact and the fact that god wanted to be known.
If god told sonhouse so, what could be wrong?
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is excellent reading material - and I believe every word especially the part where Darwin himself I belief has disproved his own theory "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? -Charles Darwin".
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is n ...[text shortened]... s". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)
It has made me realize that God may be quite, but He has provided enough evidence to humankind to disprove theories like this and other false religions. Praise God!
Originally posted by RJHindswhere did you learn to become a quotemineologist? was it at the institute of creation (ahem) "research?"
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is n ...[text shortened]... s". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)
Originally posted by NickstenEvidence? The fossil record unequivocally supports the notion that life unfolded (bacteria before eukaryotes, eukaryotes before multicellular organisms, fish before amphibians, etc.). If organisms were created by God spontaneously, we'd expect species to appear without being preceded by a logically related ancestor (Zebras before fish, birds before amphibians, etc.). The evidence supports Darwinism.
The Bible? Logic?
Originally posted by epiphinehasThen God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place,
Evidence? The fossil record unequivocally supports the notion that life unfolded (bacteria before eukaryotes, eukaryotes before multicellular organisms, fish before amphibians, etc.). If organisms were created by God spontaneously, we'd expect species to appear without being preceded by a logically related ancestor (Zebras before fish, birds before amphibians, etc.). The evidence supports Darwinism.
and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth,
and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and
fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”;
and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed
after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their
kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning;
a third day.
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created
the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the
waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and
God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the
earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind:
cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it
was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle
after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;
and God saw that it was good.
Genesis chapter 1
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat the Bible says and what creationists say, obviously, are not one and the same.
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place,
and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth,
and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and
fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after thei ...[text shortened]... ng that creeps on the ground after its kind;
and God saw that it was good.
Genesis chapter 1