A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Even Darwin admitted that if his theory were true, the record should ABOUND WITH FOSSILS. Numberless intermediate varieties...must assuredly have existed... The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extincts species must have been INCONCEIVABLY GREAT. I read your posts, and I did not see one picture of an obvious Transitional Fossile. You asked me what I consider a transitional to be. Show me anything that can demonstrate that even an insect has evoleved into something other than what it is. Evolution does not exist in the fossile record, and those who believe in it have become what they said of Christians. Blind faith believers. The only picture of a transitional comes from artist, because those are the only pictures they will ever produce. Where are the tens of thousands of Transitionals that Darwin said must be there. Oh thats right, he said they would be found, only if his theory were true.

 

Ok...The most painfully obvious transitional fossil would be archaeopteryx. Look at the pictures. It had reptilian features: Teeth, three long-ish claws on each wing, a long tail, and a flat breastbone. It also had bird features: Wings (duh), feathers (also duh), reduced fingers, and the wishbone. It is widely known (because it's just so obvious) as the transition from reptiles to birds.

You're going to say that this doesn't make evolution true or something along those lines, but you know what? I can just as easily say that just because I see everything around me doesn't mean it exists. There is a spoon (for all those matrix fans out there), and you're being beaten over the head with it.

 

Because if people were free to go there, they would realize that there is nothing to be found, and that the Bible is just a conglomeration of older myths.

This is more properly a question for another thread, but how can you possibly say that your religion is the "pure, correct form" or whatever when almost everything is based on things from older pagan religions - especially your major holidays?

 

they've found fossils of whales in (i think it was iran) in a place called the valley of the whales because they found a lot of ancient whale fossils. the point is that they found a few whales that had stubs of hind legs. this suggests that whales evolved from a four legged creature. i don't recall all the specifics, but you get what i'm going for.
campbell34, your arguments made me laugh. thank you.
i agree with what PhantomOpus said. when catholocism attempted to convert the pagans beliefs they adopted many symblos and practics from those religions to sort of accomidate the pagans a little more.
"New knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." - the late, Pope John Paul II
i don't mind the position he was taking on evolution. that evolution exists, but god is behind it. but denying that evolution is present is ignorant.

 

There is a growing consensus that Archaeoptery, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply won"t fly.
Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossil of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale.
It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, NOT A TRACE OF AN ANCESTOR OR TRANSITIONAL FORM HAS EVER BEEN FOUND FOR ANY OF THESE CREATURES!
Do you understand what I am saying. If evolution were true, the fossil record should be a slam dunk. Without a doubt there were thousands of different types of animals and birds upon this earth. Showing me a bird and calling it a transitional can only be proven, when you have great numbers of fossils showing the prgression of evolution. And they should be there. Yet the fossil record shows nothing like this. It's like Darwin said, if his theory is true' there should be great numbers of transitionals in the fossil record. Not one, but hundreds of thousands. And if you are a believer in evolution, you should be asking yourself. Where are they?

 

And so you think Moslem nations really want to preserve the Jewish and Christian faith?

If you had a clue about the prophecies of the Bible, it would be like opening your eyes and seeing for the first time in your life. Older religions had the knowledge of events of the Bible, yet the Bible is the Book that speaks with authority. The details of the past and the future are recorded in it's pages.

 

So now an archaeopteryx isn't good enough? You want hordes of archaeopteryx? Well here's the thing. There is no world-wide fossil hunt involving millions of people. There aren't many of any dinosaur fossil. Fossils have to have had really good luck to last this long. If they don't get destroyed in metamorphism, they may be eroded, weathered, broken, or may be eaten away by acid rains or may may have simply not been dug up, because we can't uproot the human civilization to do strip-mining for fossils.

If you'll do a google search for "phylogenic tree" there are plenty examples of evolutionary sequences. As for reptiles and birds, they're in the same category: Diapsida. Within that, they are in Sauria (all the other diapsids are extinct). Within Sauria, Dinosaurs, Crocodiles, and birds are together in Archosauria. Within that, Dinosaurs and Birds are together in Dinosauria. In Dinosauria, Birds are with bipedal predators and long-necked plant-eaters in Saurischia. Within that, Birds are with the bipedal predators in Theropoda. Then within Coelurosauria (and Tetanurae), they are joined by tyrannasaurs, oviraptors, and velociraptors. Within that, they are with oviraptors and velociraptors in maniraptora. And finally, the category that separates birds from reptiles is Aves. What I'm getting at is that birds and reptiles aren't as seperable, scientifically speaking, as you think.

It's true that archaeopteryx is now thought to have been capable of flight. The thinking is, however, that they did not use that as a way of getting around, but as an escape, or only when it was necessary. They probably ran or jumped a lot more than they actually flew. Can you guess why? Because they didn't have the large keeled breastbone that today's birds have their flight muscles attached to! Also, their tail feathers were not nearly as suited to flight as they are now.

Archaeopteryx may have given rise to birds fairly quickly. If you look at a picture of archaeopteryx, it looks fairly unwieldy. The birds they gave rise to probably outcompeted them quickly.

 

Are you saying that the Celts and Goths had a festival of rebirth at the time of Easter because they knew, hundreds of years before the New Testament, that at some point some dude was going to get nailed to a cross and come back to life at that time?

No. They celebrated it because winter was finally over and it was the Earth itself coming back to life. Get your head out of your ass.

 

Noah's Ark is buried in a stationary glacier but we're not allowed to see it. You have to do better than this.

 

Campbell, tell us what your version of the origin of life is. Then we can look at it and see if it stands to reason any more than evolution.

 

actually what they thought was what could be the remains of fossilized wood from the arc turned out to be nothing more than volcanic rock (or some other natural formation)

Hey have you heard the one about some saints dried up blood saved in a vile. well it supposedly reliquifies every so often, but it happens where no one can see, then it is brought out to people. its a miracle!

 

Navarro claimed he brought back wood from the ark but it dated to the middle ages.

And of course, this whole dating thing is a problem for creationists, because they'd love to use it to prove that something is of biblical age, yet they've denounced the technique as unreliable so many times when it didn't support what they wanted to believe.

 

I agree with Darwin. Darwin stated that if his theory were true the fossil record would confirm it by the numerous numbers of trans-species which would be found. Throughout the world hundreds of thousands of fossils have been unearth, yet the ones that should be in abundance which would prove his theory have never been found. Thats why those who believe in the theory of evolution do so based on faith, not on evidence. If this had been any other theory scientist would of dismissed it years ago. Yet because it is the only theory science has to refute the Bible they hold on to it as if it was the last life boat on the Titanic. Finding fossils showing trans-species should not be a rare event. If Evolution was true fossils showing trans-species would be found in abundance just like Darwin said they would. And yet after 150 years we have nothing.

 

The Jews are back in Israel today because Jesus Christ will be returning soon. If you want to know what is going to happen in Israel soon read Ezekiel Chapters 37,38,39.

 

Evolution as a process has not happened in a vacuum, it has been interrupted and disrupted numerous times by cataclysmic events like the one in 9 500 BC. Still, the fossil record is full of examples of evolving organisms, the history of the horse is a good one to research, and of course, the history of mankind has lots of different stages represented. The reason that Campbell and his critics do not see a perfectly complete chronological record is that the requisite conditions to create a fossil are not all that common. Usually, an animal dies, it soon disappears for any number of reasons. For it to be preserved intact, many factors have to happen together. No mystery there, it is simple. As for December 25th, the first noticeably longer day after the solstice, it is the day that you can tell for certain that the winter will indeed end, and the sunny days of summer are going to return. It is the birth of the new sun.

Sol Natalis. The birth of the sun. A celebration of the return of warmer days ahead.

 

Forget the horse, their should be millions of fossils showing evolution of simple one celled evolution. Darwin said they would be found if his theory was correct. If you are right, then I guess Darwin did not know what he was talking about.

 

Recipio Letum

 

There are some religious groups who think that a shortcoming of Darwin somehow proves that evolution didn't occur. It's a fallacious argument. I can't explain fully how the engine in my car runs but that doesn't prove that the engine doesn't run.

Cellular evolution is still on ongoing debate. Here's a theory that looks at cellular evolution from a different perspective:

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/0617evoltion.html

 

Well you might not be able to tell me how an engine runs, but I bet you could find one. And there should be a lot more fossils showing trans-species than there are engines.

 

Not necessarily. Certain conditions are required for fossil formation, which is why you can't find dinosaur bones all over the place.

I don't know if an automobile engine could fossilize, but hopefully there will be records of the way they were built and designed so they can be replicated for the neosapiens of the future, to show them how their vehicles evolved from horse powered, to gas powered, to solar powered, to angel powered.

Hey, I'm gonna visit my friend who has a friend named Lisa tonight.