redem
Xenentos
redem
Great. More uncited copy&paste work I presume.
Not something you wrote up. It shows signs of having been copied from a website.
Xenentos
Lol, question were are your facts to back up your statements?
Answer. I'm lazy, tired, and irritable. The info is freely available, and if you spent some time reasearching evolution, fossils in particular, and not reading creationist website, you'd realise that.
Xenentos
and so I go on mostly on the thing about fossils:
However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”
Why keep quoting problems from Darwins day? We've had a few years since then to work on this problem. We have since discovered many more fossils, and understand a lot more about geology.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
There. Click the fosil link in the menu on the left. Enjoy browseing around.
Xenentos
Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.
They have been.
What do you want? A fossil of every living creature ever to have lived showing a smooth transition? Sorry. It doesn't exist. Fossilistation is too rare.
Xenentos
Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.” And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”
We have a good idea of what life was like, yeah. Not a complete picture.
Xenentos
After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.” The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.” What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?
What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.
No transitional fossils? You're seriously claiming that?
Have you never heard of archeopteryx? Or however that's spelt.
We have transitional fossils between many of the major groups, and the minor ones.
Have you EVER read a non-creationist source?
Xenentos
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”
Hardly complete though, is it? We have plenty still to learn, and to find.
I can tell you this, i never found this on a website. Nor from some creationist thingy, and if you were readin i alread stated on the fact about archeopteryx.
100
100
200
