There Is Evidence For God

[PoliticalChic]

They are certainly not the same God.

The Greeks believed that the sun was a fiery chariot pulled across the sky each day.

That is a different CONCEPT OF OUR SUN, but both my theory and the Greeks theory are about THE SAME SUN.

It is the same sort of thing with the Creator. We have different concepts, but we are all still talking about the Creator, the SAME Creator.

"but we are all still talking about the Creator, the SAME Creator. "

I provided the quotes that clearly delineate the difference between the Judeo-Christian God, and Islam's version.
They are in no way the same.


Ineluctably, political discussions touch on some relationship to God…as in:

"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."
Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144

But, do Stalin, or Mao, or even the one Liberals called God, Obama, have the necessary defining characteristics?





2. Looking up the definition… “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe”
Definition of GOD

But that’s not enough.


“An ancient proverb teaches, “To spare the ravening leopard is an act of injustice to the sheep.” That is why the Rabbis spoke of mercy and justice as the two necessary attributes of God—and therefore of a decent society.”
Dennis Prager




And I found this on the board:

“Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless."

Still not enough for what is generally accepted as that definition.



Cave Cave Deus Videt ("Beware, Beware, God Sees"). Hieronymus Bosch, in the painting 'The Seven Deadly Sins'

"The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things" is a painting that has traditionally been attributed to Hieronymus Bosch, …
Four small circles, detailing the four last things — "Death of the Sinner", "Judgment", "Hell" and "Glory" — surround a larger circle in which the seven deadly sins are depicted: wrath at the bottom, then (proceeding clockwise) envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, extravagance (later replaced with lust), and pride, in scenes from life rather than in allegorical representations of the sins.
At the centre of the large circle, which is said to represent the eye of God, is a "pupil" in which Christ can be seen emerging from his tomb. Below this image is the Latin inscription Cave Cave Deus Videt ("Beware, Beware, God Sees").”
Hieronymus Bosch «The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things» around 1500, Museo del Prado, Madrid

See the painting here: The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things - Wikipedia



All-seeing is an essential element in the definition of God, as it reminds believers that what they do, good or evil, will not go unnoticed.

• But the best job I found was in Dennis Prager’s new book, “The Rational Bible.”
  
  “…a Creator of the universe…. nothing preexisted Genesis 1:1. … only God can create from nothing.
  
  …everything—with the exception of God—has a beginning. Prior to God’s creating, there was nothing. That includes time. Thanks to Einstein, we know that time, too, had a beginning. God, therefore, also created time, which means God exists not only outside of nature but outside of time. God precedes time and will outlive time.
  
  …unlike pre-Bible creation stories, there is complete silence regarding a birth of the deity. The God of Genesis 1:1, the God of the Bible, is not born….a god who is completely separate from nature—because God created nature. God, for the first time, is not part of nature.
  
  
  4.So, if the basic description of God is that He is a creator….’the Creator’….it puts atheists at this disadvantage. None can deny that everything is here, has been created, and even atheistic science calls for a beginning, that Big Bang…..
  
  …..then, what was there before the Big Bang?
  
  
  At least religious folks have an explanation….
  The Rational Bible: Genesis by Dennis Prager -
  
  
  
  
  Is there any basis to doubt a Creator???

I agree with all that and the Judeo-Christian Creator is different from each concept as well, we believe in a Trinity and Jews believe in a monotheistic God.

The Concepts are diffferent but the Creator we refer to is still the same one, like the Greeks with their notion of what the Sun was, the concept is different but it is the same Sun we both refer to.

That distinction is clear.

But....the two are one religion.

Both begin declare the Ten Commandments as central.
The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

 

[Ringtone]

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

I would have to strenuously disagree.

Just how, precisely, does one go about reconciling a wholly natural and random process of speciation with one of intelligently predetermined outcomes from on high—from above and beyond the cosmos? The Bible incontrovertibly asserts that biological history is a series of direct creative events.

Believers, hold fast! Stand your ground.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that even begins to falsify the biblical narrative. The observable evidence readily depicts a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically and morphologically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

The theory of evolution asserts a random, transmutationally branching process of speciation arising from a common ancestry over geological time. We do not and cannot observe the latter. Evolution is the stuff of magic, the stuff of fairy dust, smoke and mirrors. It's the stuff of philosophical mumbo jumbo solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. It's a mathematical and engineering monstrosity. All hat and no cattle. The biggest hoax of all time.

The theory does not even begin to account for the rapidity of the gain of biological information and function, let alone account for the origin of free will, moral accountability, and the apprehension of the universally absolute imperatives of natural law, logic and mathematics.

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism

 

[Hollie]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

So…. what we have is another long, tedious collection of phony, edited and altered “quotes” and no “pwoof” of any gods.

What a total fraud.

 

[Hollie]

I would have to strenuously disagree.

Just how, precisely, does one go about reconciling a wholly natural and random process of speciation with one of intelligently predetermined outcomes from on high—from above and beyond the cosmos? The Bible incontrovertibly asserts that biological history is a series of direct creative events.

Believers, hold fast! Stand your ground.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that even begins to falsify the biblical narrative. The observable evidence readily depicts a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically and morphologically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

The theory of evolution asserts a random, transmutationally branching process of speciation arising from a common ancestry over geological time. We do not and cannot observe the latter. Evolution is the stuff of magic, the stuff of fairy dust, smoke and mirrors. It's the stuff of philosophical mumbo jumbo solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. It's a mathematical and engineering monstrosity. All hat and no cattle. The biggest hoax of all time.

The theory does not even begin to account for the rapidity of the gain of biological information and function, let alone account for the origin of free will, moral accountability, and the apprehension of the universally absolute imperatives of natural law, logic and mathematics.

‘’the Bible says…” is incontrovertible ‘pwoof’ of nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

The theory of evolution asserts a random, transmutationally branching process of speciation arising from a common ancestry over geological time. We do not and cannot observe the latter.

We do have DNA evidence that can show commonality among species and maps the differences

Your claim that because man has not observed millions of years of evolution it could not have happened Is pretty lame don’t you think?

 

[Ringtone]

We do have DNA evidence that can show commonality among species and maps the differences

Your claim that because man has not observed millions of years of evolution it could not have happened Is pretty lame don’t you think?

Your failure to grasp the fact that you just agreed that the evidence supports the biblical narrative—i.e., a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time—demonstrates just how thoughtlessly deep you have your head buried in the presupposition of naturalism.

Of course species share a common genetic motif.

Therefore, evolution?!

LOL!

That's what thinking people call a non sequitur.

It would be a strange and inhospitable planet for terrestrial life otherwise. Objectively speaking, terrestrial genetics would "show a commonality among species and map the differences" whether an origin of common ancestry were true or an origin of common design were true. Duh.

Indeed, your claim regarding the supposed "millions of years of evolution" amounts to nothing more than the claim that the unobservable transmutations of evolution necessarily occurred . . . because naturalism is true.

Unlike you, I'm mindful of the competing potentialities relative to the actual evidence. You, on other hand, are not even conscious of the actual reason you interpret the evidence as you do or conscious of the actual reason you believe evolution is true in the first place. That's what's lame.

 

[alang1216]

Your failure to grasp the fact that you just agreed that the evidence supports the biblical narrative—i.e., a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time—demonstrates just how thoughtlessly deep you have your head buried in the presupposition of naturalism.

Of course species share a common genetic motif.

Therefore, evolution?!

LOL!

That's what thinking people call a non sequitur.

It would be a strange and inhospitable planet for terrestrial life otherwise. Objectively speaking, terrestrial genetics would "show a commonality among species and map the differences" whether an origin of common ancestry were true or an origin of common design were true. Duh.

Indeed, your claim regarding the supposed "millions of years of evolution" amounts to nothing more than the claim that the unobservable transmutations of evolution necessarily occurred . . . because naturalism is true.

Unlike you, I'm mindful of the competing potentialities relative to the actual evidence. You, on other hand, are not even conscious of the actual reason you interpret the evidence as you do or conscious of the actual reason you believe evolution is true in the first place. That's what's lame.

Curious that there are no plants or animals anywhere from any time that violate the theory of evolution. You'd think if species were created, at least one would have wheels and most would not now be extinct. Life seems to demonstrate the power of evolution (hello COVID) much as the universe appears very old, old enough to have allowed evolution to take place. It certainly looks like evolution is real.

 

[alang1216]

The theory of evolution asserts a random

There is nothing random about evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing random about evolution.

The mechanism of change in organisms is mutation.

Mutations are random.

Your 'reputation' remains intact.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

 

[Ringtone]

Curious that there are no plants or animals anywhere from any time that violate the theory of evolution. You'd think if species were created, at least one would have wheels and most would not now be extinct. Life seems to demonstrate the power of evolution (hello COVID) much as the universe appears very old, old enough to have allowed evolution to take place. It certainly looks like evolution is real.

You write: "You'd think if species were created, at least one would have wheels and most would not now be extinct."

Would it be too much to ask that you explain why these things should be so? You seem to be under the impression that your madness is self-evident.

No amount of age would make the mathematical and engineering monstrosity of evolutionary speciation possible in the first place, and, in any event, the fossil record does not support gradualism.

The imperatives of logic and mathematics will have the last word against the superstitions of naturalism. The latter are not supported by the evidence.

 

[alang1216]

The mechanism of change in organisms is mutation.

Mutations are random.

Your 'reputation' remains intact.

Mutations are random but they are NOT the mechanism of change in organisms. The mechanism of change in organisms is natural selection and natural selection is NOT random.

Didn't they teach you anything in your private schooling? Your 'reputation' remains intact.

 

[alang1216]

You write: "You'd think if species were created, at least one would have wheels and most would not now be extinct."

Would it be too much to ask that you explain why these things should be so? You seem to be under the impression that your madness is self-evident.

No amount of age would make the mathematical and engineering monstrosity of evolutionary speciation possible in the first place, and, in any event, the fossil record does not support gradualism.

The imperatives of logic and mathematics will have the last word against the superstitions of naturalism. The latter are not supported by the evidence.

Wheels are much more efficient than legs on areas like flat plains, that is one reason why cars are faster than horses. The fossil record shows that most species come into being and then disappear. Is God continuously creating new species every time a new island or sea appears? Can't he get it right the first time?

There are no mathematic or engineering problems with evolution and in fact engineering supports evolution far better than it does creationism.

Sorry to say but it is naturalism that has helped us understand the world around us, not religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mutations are random but they are NOT the mechanism of change in organisms. The mechanism of change in organisms is natural selection and natural selection is NOT random.

Didn't they teach you anything in your private schooling? Your 'reputation' remains intact.

You're a moron, of course.....but that's why you're a good candidate for Democrat voter.

No, wait......imbecile.


Natural selection occurs after random mutations produce slight differences in members of a species. Nearly every mutation is deleterious, but any that improve survivability will probably be retained.

Darwin believed, and Democrats as well, that said beneficial mutations eventually result in a new species.
That has never occurred.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



Being a Democrat voter and having an understanding of science, are two mutually exclusive conditions.

 

[alang1216]

You're a moron, of course.....but that's why you're a good candidate for Democrat voter.

No, wait......imbecile.


Natural selection occurs after random mutations produce slight differences in members of a species. Nearly every mutation is deleterious, but any that improve survivability will probably be retained.

Darwin believed, and Democrats as well, that said beneficial mutations eventually result in a new species.
That has never occurred.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

Being a Democrat voter and having an understanding of science, are two mutually exclusive conditions.

The fossil record clearly shows the new species have appeared. Where did they come from?

 

[Hollie]

I would have to strenuously disagree.

Just how, precisely, does one go about reconciling a wholly natural and random process of speciation with one of intelligently predetermined outcomes from on high—from above and beyond the cosmos? The Bible incontrovertibly asserts that biological history is a series of direct creative events.

Believers, hold fast! Stand your ground.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that even begins to falsify the biblical narrative. The observable evidence readily depicts a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically and morphologically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

The theory of evolution asserts a random, transmutationally branching process of speciation arising from a common ancestry over geological time. We do not and cannot observe the latter. Evolution is the stuff of magic, the stuff of fairy dust, smoke and mirrors. It's the stuff of philosophical mumbo jumbo solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. It's a mathematical and engineering monstrosity. All hat and no cattle. The biggest hoax of all time.

The theory does not even begin to account for the rapidity of the gain of biological information and function, let alone account for the origin of free will, moral accountability, and the apprehension of the universally absolute imperatives of natural law, logic and mathematics.

How does one propose a rational argument with nothing more than, ''becauuse I say so''

We can propose wholly natural processes for the diversity of life on the planet because we have no evidence of supernatural gods performing magic tricks. Not a single discovery in the history of humankind has been show to have supernatural origins. You can deny evolution, but it's not for scientific reasons, it's for reasons directly connected to the religion that is a part of your geographic place of birth and the gods customary to that geographic location.

It's comical that religious extremists claim to disprove biological evolution with the same edited and parsed ''quotes'' they copy and paste from fundie websites. So, I'd have to say that you, Henry Morris, Jimmy Swaggert, etc., are geniuses to have refuted the research and hard data published by scientists. You discovered what every other scientist has missed. Remarkable that science has missed a flat earth. If your angry fundamentalism is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is all we have seen so far), then I would have to question your ability to function in a reality based world where people don't seem to fall off the edge of the planet. You would rather believe, without the slightest shred of evidence, in talking animals, Jonah (or was it Ishmael - I always get those guys mixed up), living in the belly of a whale.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fossil record clearly shows the new species have appeared. Where did they come from?

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzze stop pretending you know anything.

You clearly don't.....you're a government school grad who cluelessly votes Democrat.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. 百盈彩票|百盈彩登录网址


a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world." Extrait de:





There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:

"Gareth J. Nelson > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false019871.html#footnote13

 

[alang1216]

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzze stop pretending you know anything.

You clearly don't.....you're a government school grad who cluelessly votes Democrat.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. 百盈彩票|百盈彩登录网址


a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!

If you read a textbook newer than the 19th century you'd know that there are plenty of examples of your 'intermediate' species. Google whale evolution.

You really need to get over your silly fixation with Darwin. To you he is the anti-Christ but to most of us he is a scientist who did careful research and got some things right and some things wrong.