Fossils Have Discredited Macroevolution!

[Jason78]

Muhammad be pearl necklaced, that dude disappeared quick once you guys posted pictures :P.

Aw :(  I wanted to play with the chew toy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If animals don't evolve, where did poodles come from? There were no poodles before mankind was here. Are there poodles talked about in the Old or new testaments. What happened to the unicorns, or burning bushes and donkeys that talk? Where did Lilith, the first woman go after she left Adam? Who were the gods that God spoke to when he forced Adam and Eve from the Garden? Why are mythical people mentioned in the Bible if it isn't a myth too? Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Think about that one! Religion is so silly it is unbelievable that anyone past 11 years old would believe it is based on facts.  Solitary

And chihuahuas and Great Danes can no longer successfully reproduce, they're different subspecies.

[josephpalazzo]

And chihuahuas and Great Danes can no longer successfully reproduce, they're different subspecies.

Blasphemy!

[SGOS]

What do you think about this?

If anyone comes up with a valid argument against evolution, it will make a big news splash.  Until that happens, I'm not going to read or listen to the same old same old from deluded theists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Blasphemy!

Just one more cervix we offer.

[Mandingo]

Even though we have fossils of a 500 milllion year old crab (or was it a star fish?) and a 450 million old fossil of a lot of other creatures - who still exist today - we can compare them and see they are still the one and same. No changes. How is this explained, then?

By one or probably both of these arguments:
1) those particular organisms didn't change much because they didn't need to, they proved good enough to survive the conditions.
2) you're not wearing your glasses again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By one or probably both of these arguments:
1) those particular organisms didn't change much because they didn't need to, they proved good enough to survive the conditions.
2) you're not wearing your glasses again.

There's also the fact that evolution produces similar creatures to fill similar niches. It's possible that the 500 million year old crab is not directly related to the modern one.

[Mister Agenda]

The paleontologist Stepehen Jay Gold admits: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Charles Darwin said in his "The origin of the species": "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [should] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such gratuated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

The Zoologist Mark Ridley says: "The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineage is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can be rarely seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example."

The paleontologist David M. Raup from "The Field Museum of Natural History", which has one of the largest collection of fossils in the whole world says: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

"The 'intermediate life forms' imagined by evolutionists never existed at any time"

I could quote many more but this video speaks for itself - the quotes are just bonus information :P


Right now I'm not talking about Islam or anything. I'm merely showing you that macroevolution is wrong.

So really... No evidence for macroevolution in fossils - where else should we look? In our imagination?

What do you think about this? Personally, I've began to doubt macroevolution(not micro!) because I haven't yet found a solid proof for it?

I am unconvinced that you ever accepted macroevolution.

Your quotes are well-known quote-mines. That is, they have been taken out of context to make the writer appear to hold a position they actually don't. Darwin is particularly easy to treat in this fashion because of his habit of laying out possible objections to his position before proceeding to demolish them. Quote-mining is lying.

And macroevolution would be adequately supported by molecular biology if there were no fossils at all.

[Mister Agenda]

Why?

Did you read the quotes I quoted? Or watched at least the first 5 minutes of the video?

Science is argued with evidence, not quotes about evidence. The topic is evolution, not literature.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wasn't the author the guy who used a fishing lure as an illustration in his book?

[PopeyesPappy]

Wasn't the author the guy who used a fishing lure as an illustration in his book?

Yes. Here is an image from his book.



And here is another one.



Shit like this is just another reason why I have such a hard time taking these fucktards seriously. Anyone that would bring this crap to the table deserves nothing but ridicule.

[Mister Agenda]

I said to watch your language.

You're not very strong on the people skills, are you? Even a cretin should know what happens next when you try to control other people's speech.

Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P

And if you, as a respected ichthyo-paleontologist can't see it, it must not exist, eh?

[Mandingo]

Muhammad be pearl necklaced, that dude disappeared quick once you guys posted pictures :P.

Pictures are haram (sinful).

[Solitary]

Discovery Channel   

One reason there are missing link fossils is because of this:

Scientists have estimated that over the course of Earth's history, anywhere between 1 and 4 billion species have existed on this planet. Be it through disease, genetic obsolescence, over-predation or any number of other factors, the overwhelming majority of these species are now extinct. Of these billions of species, roughly 50 million still survive into the modern era. While these numbers are certainly extreme at first glance, it serves as proof that extinction, while a sad occurrence, is a part of life for all living things.

And we are next from ignorance, over population, and greed! Even science can't save us from these.  Solitary

[Mandingo]

Even science can't save us from these.  Solitary

I never knew science was supposed to bring salvation.