| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
29 Oct 2006 09:58:13 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Hello,
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving. They
are not there in the fossil record. (a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata. That is just what we
should find if life forms were created full and complete on the spot
as Genesis shows.
Take your pick: A THEORY with very little supporting fossil evidence.
Or, a Bible account that overwhelmingly finds the support of the
fossil record.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 02:35:35 PM |
|
|
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:q4j9k25ojul15i9b4qbjvrm7br0cpe1imm@4ax.com...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Hello,
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving. They
are not there in the fossil record. (a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata. That is just what we
should find if life forms were created full and complete on the spot
as Genesis shows.
Take your pick: A THEORY with very little supporting fossil evidence.
Or, a Bible account that overwhelmingly finds the support of the
fossil record.
Get your head out of your imaginary gods ***** a get an education.
The Evolution theory is supported by tons of factual evidence and is
accepted by 95% of the scientific community.
Only religionists question it at all.
The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, inconsistencies,
implausible and impossible tales.
If the Bibles are the word of any god he is a blithering idiot!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 12:19:48 PM |
|
|
James <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote:
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving.
And we do.
They
are not there in the fossil record.
They are indeed there.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 08:43:00 PM |
|
|
James <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in
news:q4j9k25ojul15i9b4qbjvrm7br0cpe1imm@4ax.com:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Hello,
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
There are vast numbers of fossils recovered. However the fossil evidence is
secondary to the genetic evidence showing the nested hierarchy of life on
Earth.
A summary of the scientific case for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Does it burn?
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving.
Sure:
Hominids - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Whales - http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
All sorts - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
They
are not there in the fossil record. (a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
Your information is grossly out of date. There are many thousands of
transition fossils known as shown above. In any case the primary genetic
evidence overwhelms even the fossil evidence.
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata. That is just what we
should find if life forms were created full and complete on the spot
as Genesis shows.
You don't find modern animals represented in ancient strata. The evidence
shows that life of Earth very much changed over time. Genesis is a bronze
age story made up by ignorant middle eastern goat herders.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleozoic/paleozoic.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/mesozoic.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cenozoic/cenozoic.html
Tree of life project:
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
Take your pick: A THEORY with very little supporting fossil evidence.
That would be Creationism invented by ignorant bronze age goat herders
whose leading modern day supporter Dr Kent "Diploma Mill" Hovind is
currently before a judge facing tax evasion charges, including deducting
payroll tax from his employees and pocketing the proceeds himself.
Creationists finest exemplar!
Or, a Bible account that overwhelmingly finds the support of the
fossil record.
Or a scientific theory of evolution supported by mountains of evidence
growing by the day.
Ignorance can be cured but stooopidity is permanent.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 12:42:56 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms
gradually evolving from one life form into another life
form, thus thousands of transitional life forms should
be there showing this evolving.
Really? Why?
Map that out for us. Lavish us with details. As this is
your <ahem> "argument" here, make the best case
you can.
Go on, give it a whirl.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 10:23:53 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Hello,
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
If you read you will find that the Darwin's "finches" of the Galapagos
Islands were not - and are not - fossils. You can go and see them
today. The best place to learn about the theory of evolution is in a
university class that teaches biological evolution rather than from a
fundamentalist preacher who has never taken a collage course in
biological evolution.
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving.
They are! You just cannot see it. It is, by your standards, too slow.
There are lizards in my back yard that may have descendants of a
different species, if we do not destroy them and their descendants.
However, there are a lot of people who do not seem to care if some
species that God created go extinct with no evolved offspring.
They
are not there in the fossil record. (a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata. That is just what we
should find if life forms were created full and complete on the spot
as Genesis shows.
Take your pick: A THEORY with very little supporting fossil evidence.
Or, a Bible account that overwhelmingly finds the support of the
fossil record.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 07:39:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
<snip>
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Hello,
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving. They
are not there in the fossil record.
Actually they are and more of them are being found every day. Will
they all be found? Probably not. Fossilizing in a one in a million
(or less) proposition. But enough have been found to lay out the
framework for the evolutionary path for all organisms now living and
many that are extinct, such as the dinosaurs. Current research and
new finds are rapidly filling in the gaps.
(a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
Ahhhhhhhh. Your emphasis on the word "theory" marks you as a
creationism/intelligent design(take your pick, They are both the same
thing in different clothes) adherent who is deliberately or through
ignorance applying the colloquial usage of "theory" to the scientific
meaning of the word. In order to educate you, on the off-chance that
you are ignorant of the true meaning and are not deliberately mixing
meanings in order to confuse the argument, I'll give you a simple
explanation of what a scientific theory really is.
In science, a "law" describes phenomena that are thought to be
invariable - like the law of gravity. Theories describe how and why
those laws work. By definition, a theory can never be proven. if it
is proven to becomes a law. A theory can only be disproven. If it is
disproven, it is either modified to account for the newly
discovered/described data or it is discarded and new theories
formulated. After 150 years of trying, Darwinian Evolution has never
been disproven
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata.
Only if you overlook the obvious.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 12:00:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving.
Where does it say "thousands"? Evolution says that things change.
We've seen that, we don't need fossils to prove it.
They are not there in the fossil record. (a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
No, there's no theory of evolution that requires loads of intermediate
forms (Punk Eek requires a few; no other theory requires any), and
evolution itself only requires that you're not a clone of your parent.
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata.
Which geology, chemistry, math and a few other sciences predict.
Whether evolution predicts intermediate forms or not, math alone says
that the chance that we've found one of each by now is as close to nil
as to be zero.
BTW, how can you possibly be your mother's child? Where's the
intermediate form between you and your mother?
That is just what we should find if life forms were created full and complete on the spot
as Genesis shows.
But, if Genesis is correct, we should find them sorted by size - we
don't, we find them sorted by complexity, supporting evolution and
contradicting Genesis.
Take your pick: A THEORY with very little supporting fossil evidence.
Which particular theory? (Change in allele frequencies in a breeding
population over time - evolution - is an observation, not a theory.
Observations ARE evidence.)
Or, a Bible account that overwhelmingly finds the support of the
fossil record.
Except for all the places in which it contradicts the fossil record,
which is just about every place it even comes close to touching on a
subject that has anything even remotely to do with evolution.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 01:46:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:00:50 -0500, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving.
Where does it say "thousands"? Evolution says that things change.
We've seen that, we don't need fossils to prove it.
And in fact _every_ form is a "transitional form," between what came
before it and what will come after it. We ourselves are a transitional
form between small-brained primates and large-brained primates; for
evidence, see the fact that human difficulty in childbirth is almost
entirely due to the size of the infants head.
All this garbage about "transitional forms" just ignores the fact that
_any_ form can be "transitional" when placed in the proper context. Which,
of course, the creationists refuse to do, clinging instead to their
fantasies.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 12:41:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:46:41 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:00:50 -0500, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving.
Where does it say "thousands"? Evolution says that things change.
We've seen that, we don't need fossils to prove it.
And in fact _every_ form is a "transitional form," between what came
before it and what will come after it. We ourselves are a transitional
form between small-brained primates and large-brained primates; for
evidence, see the fact that human difficulty in childbirth is almost
entirely due to the size of the infants head.
All this garbage about "transitional forms" just ignores the fact that
_any_ form can be "transitional" when placed in the proper context. Which,
of course, the creationists refuse to do, clinging instead to their
fantasies.
You know, trying to point that out to them, they'll just accuse you of
some weird "dishonesty."
I mean, it doesn't match the strawman some member of some priest class
pounded into their heads so *you must be lying!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 12:38:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James wrote:
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record,
Wrong.
But creationists are too stupid to realize science has advanced in the
last century or so...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 01:08:01 PM |
|
|
In article <K6KdnTR2wvkn29vYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James wrote:
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record,
Wrong.
But creationists are too stupid to realize science has advanced in the
last century or so...
Even the very first formulation of the theory of evolution, Darwin's,
was not based of fossil evidence -- in fact, Darwin himself named
the paucity of the fossil record as one of three arguments which
might be raised against his thory.
Darwin based his theory almost entirely on observations of living
organisms, combined with the accumulated experience of selective
breeding by human agents. With a very few exceptions, fossils
made no contribution.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 02:29:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:08:01 +0000 (UTC), while bungee
jumping, (Cary Kittrell) shouted
thusly:
In article <K6KdnTR2wvkn29vYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James wrote:
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record,
Wrong.
But creationists are too stupid to realize science has advanced in the
last century or so...
Even the very first formulation of the theory of evolution, Darwin's,
was not based of fossil evidence -- in fact, Darwin himself named
the paucity of the fossil record as one of three arguments which
might be raised against his thory.
Darwin based his theory almost entirely on observations of living
organisms, combined with the accumulated experience of selective
breeding by human agents. With a very few exceptions, fossils
made no contribution.
Which demonstrates that it was pure fantasy.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 06:02:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:29:18 +0000, Azaliah wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:08:01 +0000 (UTC), while bungee
jumping, (Cary Kittrell) shouted
thusly:
In article <K6KdnTR2wvkn29vYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James wrote:
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record,
Wrong.
But creationists are too stupid to realize science has advanced in the
last century or so...
Even the very first formulation of the theory of evolution, Darwin's,
was not based of fossil evidence -- in fact, Darwin himself named
the paucity of the fossil record as one of three arguments which
might be raised against his thory.
Darwin based his theory almost entirely on observations of living
organisms, combined with the accumulated experience of selective
breeding by human agents. With a very few exceptions, fossils
made no contribution.
Which demonstrates that it was pure fantasy.
Idiot.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 06:04:57 PM |
|
|
In article <lrednaocEOowD9vYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:29:18 +0000, Azaliah wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:08:01 +0000 (UTC), while bungee
jumping, (Cary Kittrell) shouted
thusly:
In article <K6KdnTR2wvkn29vYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James wrote:
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record,
Wrong.
But creationists are too stupid to realize science has advanced in the
last century or so...
Even the very first formulation of the theory of evolution, Darwin's,
was not based of fossil evidence -- in fact, Darwin himself named
the paucity of the fossil record as one of three arguments which
might be raised against his thory.
Darwin based his theory almost entirely on observations of living
organisms, combined with the accumulated experience of selective
breeding by human agents. With a very few exceptions, fossils
made no contribution.
Which demonstrates that it was pure fantasy.
Idiot.
Say, isn't `Azaliah' merely the latest mutation of Pastor
Waffle, or Giant Dave, or whatever his last avatar was
called?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 06:36:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:04:57 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <lrednaocEOowD9vYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:29:18 +0000, Azaliah wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:08:01 +0000 (UTC), while bungee
jumping, (Cary Kittrell) shouted
thusly:
In article <K6KdnTR2wvkn29vYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:58:13 -0500, James wrote:
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record,
Wrong.
But creationists are too stupid to realize science has advanced in the
last century or so...
Even the very first formulation of the theory of evolution, Darwin's,
was not based of fossil evidence -- in fact, Darwin himself named
the paucity of the fossil record as one of three arguments which
might be raised against his thory.
Darwin based his theory almost entirely on observations of living
organisms, combined with the accumulated experience of selective
breeding by human agents. With a very few exceptions, fossils
made no contribution.
Which demonstrates that it was pure fantasy.
Idiot.
Say, isn't `Azaliah' merely the latest mutation of Pastor
Waffle, or Giant Dave, or whatever his last avatar was
called?
Oh brother. Not again...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
29 Oct 2006 11:16:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, James wrote:
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Hello,
If "all of the mountains of evidence" is mainly referring to the
fossil record, then it should be reworded to "all of the molehills of
evidence".
if evolution is correct, then we should find life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another life form, thus thousands of
transitional life forms should be there showing this evolving. They
are not there in the fossil record. (a rather small amount of alleged
ones are claimed, but fall far short of the many thousands needed to
give solid credence to the evolutionary THEORY.
There is some evidence in the fossil record of life forms gradually
evolving from one life form into another. Also there is evidence
that this happened from the findings of DNA research. Most
creationists still feel that the evidence that any such thing ever
happened is insufficient. The fossil evidence is overwhelming for
proving the fact that the various different life forms came into
being over periods of many hundreds of millions of years, rather than
over the course of six consecutive days as narrated in Genesis. Also
there are mountains of evidence to prove that the age of the earth is
greater than 6000 years by many factors of magnitude.
Taking an overview of all the fossil record we DO find that life forms
appear suddenly and fully formed in the strata.
We find that and also we occasionally find some transitional species.
That is just what we should find if life forms were created full and
complete on the spot as Genesis shows.
Also that is just what we should find if life forms changed through
sudden mutations, starts and spurts, etc. That is a theory of evolution
that differs from the theory of Darwin, who maintained that evolution
happens primarily through the mechanism of natural selection
Take your pick: A THEORY with very little supporting fossil evidence.
Theories of evolution are supported by mountains of fossil evidence
and by mountains of DNA evidence.
Or, a Bible account that overwhelmingly finds the support of the
fossil record.
The author of Genesis got it wrong with regard to the chronological
order in which the various categories of species came into being.
I do not know of anyone who claims that the Bible presents any
scientific theories about how the various forms of life came into
being. The Bible does present a most fascinating myth about how
that happened. You should learn to appreciate religious myths for
what they are and you should also learn to appreciate scientific
theories for what they are, and you would do well to study both
in an appropriate manner.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Darwinism is doomed |
30 Oct 2006 12:40:37 PM |
|
|
Piggybacking...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
Re: Why Darwinism is doomed
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:10 -0400, J Young wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Yes. After 150 years, Darwinism is STILL doomed. And with all of the
mountains of evidence supporting it, its demise will be pretty
spectacular, eh?
Reminds me of the last time I saw yet another "Usenet is dying" article. I
mean, Usenet is dead *again???
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
