OLAADEGBU:

Asking evolutionists the right questions would be to ask them where they think dinosaurs come from?
According to evolutionists millions of years is ascribed to the fossil record.   The origin of Dinosaurs which they claim to be 220 million years ago prompts us to ask the question: 
Where did the dinosaurs come from?
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, Dr. David Norman, 1985, p. 186.
"The question of the origin of dinosaurs is one that has puzzled paleontologists for many years."

Dr Norman is a lecturer in Zoology

This is a quote from an authoritative book:

"Where did dinosaurs come from?  That apparently simple question has been the subject of intense debate amongst scientists for over 150 years, . . ."
 
The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, 1998, p.12

What is their evidence? 
They claim:

"Thecondonts.  Small lizards that ran on two legs and gave rise to the giant reptiles collectively known as dinosaurs"

– The Nature of Life, 1995. 

This is the only evidence presented in any of the major biology textbooks.
This makes us ask these pertinent questions:

1. How could a small reptile evolve into a large dinosaur?

OLAADEGBU:

2. Shouldn’t there be thousands (millions) of intermediate fossils in the cambrian explosion?

OLAADEGBU:

3. Why don’t we see intermediate dinosaur forms in museums?

OLAADEGBU:

Great claims require real evidence.

Let me tell you what I believe, which is the Biblical Model:

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good . . . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." -- Genesis 1:25,31

People and dinosaurs lived together.  The evolution story is based on faith not real evidence.  Gen.1:24-25,31; Job 40:15-24; 41; Isa.30:6;
If evolution is unable to provide the thousands of transitions for the origin of dinosaurs then it is without a foundation.  Now that we have an understanding of the foundation of evolution which is lacking.  Why is evolution without a foundation?  Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate.
Why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?  I already have a faith.  Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is rational to believe that God and not unknown events created dinosaurs.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.  It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."   

(Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." 

(H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm 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."   

(E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)  

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."   

(More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." 

(Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)

OLAADEGBU:

Let us see what some evolutionists who know what they are talking about and are not afraid to say it as it is without putting their tongues in their cheeks.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.  It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."   

(Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

(H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm 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."   

(E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234) 

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."   

(More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."

(Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)

thehomer:
[size=18pt]Evolution is not about the origin of life but about the diversity of life.[/size]

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. . . . , Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3) 

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record, The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22) 

"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."   (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75) 

"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record.  Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology,"  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984) 

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

"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 gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127) 

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion, it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. . . . , Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89) 

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)

OLAADEGBU:

This is about large gaps.

See these quotes from sincere evolutionist scientists who are concerned about their ideaologies yet you will see some so called evolutionists on this board trying to prove the evidence of transitional fossils that is nowhere to be found.  Who do they think they are deceiving?

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. . . . , Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record, The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)

"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."   (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)

"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record.  Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology,"  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

"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 gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion, it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. . . . , Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)

OLAADEGBU:

<cartoon>

OLAADEGBU:

This is what Ariel Roth wrote about the Cambrian Explosion

"The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved." (Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), Origins, 1998, pg. 184.)

"Given the fact of Evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the palaeontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century, What Evolution Is, 2001, pg. 14.)

Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing.

The question again is, why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?
I already have a faith. Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.

Why is evolution without a foundation? Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate.

Therefore, it is not only rational but equally reasonable to believe that God, not unknown events created all life after its kind.

thehomer:

You have now shifted to simply quoting people. This is not a scientific approach. For your approach to be scientific, you need to present evidence not just quoting people who seem to agree with you.
When you simply quote people, all you're doing is simply committing a fallacy of appealing to authority. This is why it's not just quoting the person that is important but also explaining how and why the person said whatever it is you're quoting them to have said because the person you're quoting may simply be wrong.
. . . .

thehomer:

It seems you've decided to go for the straw man fallacy here because the fact that we do not have all the fossils of previous species does not mean that the theory of evolution is wrong because the theory has lots of other lines of evidence supporting it of which fossils are a small though visually commanding aspect.
Why don't you make serious arguments rather than resolving to argue by merely quoting people?
And you're yet to actually respond to my previous posts.

Stalwert:

thehommer you only proved that you argue blindly,

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-582081.32.html#msg7516115

Stalwert:

the absence of fossils is clearly a strong refutation against evolution, yet you blind arguement tecniques refuse to let you even accept that as an evidence,

Stalwert:

one thing I have noticed with you is that you do not argue based on understanding rather you argue based on how something fits your pre - conceived notions. This atitude you showed in this thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=577313.msg7490214#msg7490214 even when commonsense should have shown you how wrong you actuallly were, but because the people that postulate the Big Bang theory, said time did not exist before the Big bang, hence despite you repeated refferals to pre, before ( which shows an indication of time before the actual Big Bang), you still were able to conclude that time did not exist before the Big bang,

Stalwert:

now you have been shown a very strong evidence disproving Evolution, but your Preconcieved Notions refuse to even admit that it serves a a basis of rejecting Evolution; even Darwin was aprehensive of the issues of Fossils:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed, Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,[size=18pt] why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?[/size]… B[size=18pt]ut in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24[/size]

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection [/b]was the argument that the [size=18pt][b]fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. [/size]

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

Stalwert:

thehommer you only proved that you argue blindly,

Stalwert:

Quote from: Stalwert on Yesterday at 08:57:14 AM
thehommer you only proved that you argue blindly,

 

Darwin's Day

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)

Thousands of clergy have signed "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science." On the Sunday closest to Charles Darwin's birthday, these "pastors" eulogize him and endorse evolutionary science as compatible with the Bible. Here are five reasons why this idea is grossly wrong.

• The Bible has absolutely no hint of ages of evolutionary development. Forcing the "days" of Genesis 1 to mean "ages" can be done, but there is no support for that idea in the rest of Scripture (Psalm 33:6-9, 148:5-6; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 4:11; etc.).

• Evolution is not observed at all today. Empirical science is based on observation and verification. Nothing (from bacteria to people) is "evolving" into a "higher order." Period.

• Fossil data does not show any transitional forms. If evolution occurred prior to recorded history, it can only be documented by the fossils embedded in the water-deposited rocks of earth. Those "missing links" are still missing.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods. God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection. He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior. He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11). And He cannot lie!

• God's stated purpose for creating excludes evolution. The creation reveals the Creator (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4), gives authority to the message of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:16-18), and is the foundation for the gospel and for worship (Revelation 14:6-7). Creating is what God does at the moment of the new birth (Ephesians 2:8-10). HMM III

For More . . .

Darwin's Day

[img width=500 height=400]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20010212.gif[/img]

"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution], I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation, can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)

"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated, We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)

OLAADEGBU:

Darwin's Day

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)

Thousands of clergy have signed "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science."  On the Sunday closest to Charles Darwin's birthday, these "pastors" eulogize him and endorse evolutionary science as compatible with the Bible. Here are five reasons why this idea is grossly wrong.

• The Bible has absolutely no hint of ages of evolutionary development.  Forcing the "days" of Genesis 1 to mean "ages" can be done, but there is no support for that idea in the rest of Scripture (Psalm 33:6-9, 148:5-6; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 4:11; etc.).

• Evolution is not observed at all today.  Empirical science is based on observation and verification.  Nothing (from bacteria to people) is "evolving" into a "higher order."  Period.

• Fossil data does not show any transitional forms.  If evolution occurred prior to recorded history, it can only be documented by the fossils embedded in the water-deposited rocks of earth.  Those "missing links" are still missing.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods.  God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection.  He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior.  He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11).  And He cannot lie!

• God's stated purpose for creating excludes evolution.  The creation reveals the Creator (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4), gives authority to the message of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:16-18), and is the foundation for the gospel and for worship (Revelation 14:6-7).  Creating is what God does at the moment of the new birth (Ephesians 2:8-10).  HMM III

For More . . .

OLAADEGBU link=topic=360281.msg7923381#msg7923381 date=1300277674:

<cartoon>

vedaxcool:

[size=18pt]The fossil record demonstrates that living things did not develop through a process of small cumulative changes, but appeared abruptly with their distinct characteristics, and this fact has been accepted by evolutionist paleontologists themselves since the 1970's[/size]

vedaxcool:

@thehommer, man calm down showing your furstration that evolution is a myth does not make it a reality.

OLAADEGBU:

Here are more quotes from scientists, most of them evolutionists admitting that evolution is a joke, a game carried too far. They are at loss when it comes to the foundational questions such as the origins of life and the universe and wish to sweep it under the carpet.

"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution], I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation, can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?" (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)

"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated, We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)

thehomer:

You have now shifted to simply quoting people. This is not a scientific approach. For your approach to be scientific, you need to present evidence not just quoting people who seem to agree with you.
This simply shows you have nothing to say.

Darwin's Day

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20020923.gif[/img]

OLAADEGBU:

<cartoon>

Uyi Iredia:

thehomer >>> Evolution is not BLIND >>> it evinces intent to survive >>> I propose a new symbiosis of terms >>> I call it

INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION

Uyi Iredia:

BTW i hope you read my reply to your message >>> Also consider this

Uyi Iredia:

ZENO'S PARADOX explained

people who are AWAKE run/walk
people who are ASLEEP run/walk
people who are DEAD DO NOT run/walk

ergo,

people are MINDS who EXIST IN SPACE

" . . . we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)

"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. 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." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)

"None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)

Evolutionary Terms

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20020408.gif[/img]

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. . . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly 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; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  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.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat . . . If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution.  Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell.  The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)

"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs,"  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)

"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)

"All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  , The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)

Things You May Not Know About Evolution

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20050509.gif[/img]

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20100115.gif[/img][/img]

Scientific Case Against Evolution

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20110121.gif[/img]