Rikki, I appreciate your response, but I believe you're simply misinterpreting the data and, in fact, turning a blind eye to evidence.
You see, although the theory of macro evolution and the fossil record are different fields of study, if the former were true, the latter would bear witness to it; It doesn't.
It is seldom fully appreciated that the only real evidence for or against evolution is in the fossil record. Every other argument for macro evolution is based on what might have happened. The fossil record is a record of what did happen to living matter over millions of years. Leading evolutionists like Gould, Patterson, Eldredge, and Tattersall have admitted the fossil record is an embarrassment to them because it militates against Darwin's theory that we're all related.
Darwin himself was plagued by this problem for his theory and he admitted if his theory were true, "every geological formation and every stratum" should have been "full of intermediate links," which was not the case. Of course, he thought the fossil record would eventually bear him out.
Fast forward 150 years and 250,000 different fossil species later, and the situation has only become worse for his theory and every theory of macro evolution since then. In fact, that's why I made the tongue-in-cheek reference to the only thing that's every conclusively macro evolved is the theory of macro evolution.
In addition to paleontology striking a blow to biological evolution, there are also innumerable problems with the theories of chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, and theistic evolution.
We both know it takes a whole lot of blind faith to be an evolutionist/atheist. I just don't have that much faith.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Billsikes writes:
Rikki, I appreciate your response, but I believe you're simply misinterpreting the data and, in fact, turning a blind eye to evidence.
You see, although the theory of macro evolution and the fossil record are different fields of study, if the former were true, the latter would bear witness to it; It doesn't.
It is seldom fully appreciated that the only real evidence for or against evolution is in the fossil record. Every other argument for macro evolution is based on what might have happened. The fossil record is a record of what did happen to living matter over millions of years. Leading evolutionists like Gould, Patterson, Eldredge, and Tattersall have admitted the fossil record is an embarrassment to them because it militates against Darwin's theory that we're all related.
Darwin himself was plagued by this problem for his theory and he admitted if his theory were true, "every geological formation and every stratum" should have been "full of intermediate links," which was not the case. Of course, he thought the fossil record would eventually bear him out.
Fast forward 150 years and 250,000 different fossil species later, and the situation has only become worse for his theory and every theory of macro evolution since then. In fact, that's why I made the tongue-in-cheek reference to the only thing that's every conclusively macro evolved is the theory of macro evolution.
In addition to paleontology striking a blow to biological evolution, there are also innumerable problems with the theories of chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, and theistic evolution.
We both know it takes a whole lot of blind faith to be an evolutionist/atheist. I just don't have that much faith.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.