Post by Malte Runz(snip)
Post by JamesAnybody that knows me knows I hold true science with highest regards.
If you could hear yourself through the ears of a scientist, you'd piss your
pants from laughter.
The proof is in the pudding.
Post by Malte RunzPost by JamesAfter all, it was God who created all the natural sciences. So who
should know most about them, than Almighty God.
Too bad your god is imaginary.
Fortunately, just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
Post by Malte RunzPost by JamesBut pseudoscience ...
Creationist science is the quintessence of pseudoscience.
Some are, and some are not. In my case, based on the Bible, I don't
believe the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. I accept
the fact that it could be billions of years old as scientists tell us.
Post by Malte RunzPost by James... like macroevolution brings shame to those scientists
who endorse it and teach it. They should know better. And it goes
against the fossil record. ...
The fossil record supports 'macroeveolution'. That's how scientist got the
idea in the first place.
But since you hold true science with the highest regards, why don't you
supply some true scientific evidence that falsifies the 'macroevolutionary'
part of the ToE?
Certainly. I'll even quote the founder of that pseudoscience, Darwin
himself.
The Bible shows that life forms were created independently of each
other. In other words, no transitional links. Notice Darwin's comment:
“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
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)
As much work that Darwin did back then, he should have at least
stumbled upon a variety of transitional fossils. HE DIDN'T. And that
bothered him.
Of the billions of life forms that had ever lived, The ground should
be bursting at the seams with transitional fossils, millions of them.
But they are not just there in the fossil record. The small amount
they claim today, in no way, supports the macroevolutionary theory.
They play 'musical bones' with their alleged evidence, to make things
appear to come from one another. And they get absurd; dinosaurs to
birds. Watch out for that T-Robin!
So in review, the Bible says each life form was created independently
of each other, thus no transitional life forms. The alleged fossil
record shows very little transitional life forms. Way too small to
have had it happened that way.
Post by Malte RunzPost by James... The Bible is closer to supporting the
fossil record, than the macroevolution advocates ever were.
Again, I recommend that you back up your claims with evidence and not mere
assertions.
See above concerning transitional life forms.
Another thing in the fossil record is the abrupt sudden appearance of
all different kinds of life forms:
“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 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.
...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.” (The Origin of Species, by
Charles Darwin)
So the Bible shows God created all those life forms apparently within
a short span of time. The fossil records shows multi-life forms
suddenly appearing in the fossil record, thus supporting the Bible's
account over that theory.
Post by Malte RunzPost by James... Even
Darwin admitted that.
Of course he didn't, but if he had done so, it would mean absolutely nothing
to the ToE anno 2014. Darwin is not an authority anymore.
He never was. But at least he had the courage to face certain facts
that he couldn't explain. Notice:
"15 However, could it not be that, given the existence of life,
different species of living things might progressively evolve into
other species? Well, if that took place, the fossil record of past
ages would show this. But does it? Consider the so-called Cambrian
period. Here fossils of the major groups of invertebrates first appear
together in a spectacular “explosion” of living things. If these
vastly differing groups all exploded into life at the one time, how
could they possibly have evolved from one another? Darwin himself
frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into
life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”
Fatal indeed!—1 Corinthians 3:19, 20.
16 The fossil record reveals that different and very complex life
forms appeared suddenly and fully developed. As one professor of
natural science commented: “Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants,
hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance
as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less
a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Are there any
fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters the
accepted length? No, there are not. The truth of the matter is as
stated at Genesis 1:25: “God proceeded to make the wild beast of the
earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its
kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And
God got to see that it was good.” Yes, very good!" (86W,4/1, pp.
13.14)
Also notice:
“In the 1967 publication, The Fossil Record, . . . jointly sponsored
by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological
Association of England . . . some 120 scientists, all specialists,
prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present
the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500
groups. . . .
“A conclusive generalization drawn from these charts is as follows:
Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a
separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds!!!
“Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil
record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares,
squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they
are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link
with any reptile, the supposed progenitor. . . ." (quoted from 73
Awake! mag, 10/22, pp. 17)
Do you find fault above with the Geological Society of London and the
Palaeontological Association of England?
James
www.jw.org