QUOTE
evolution is a theory! not fact. in fact it is statistically impossible for evolution to have occured. it is much more sensible to believe God created the universe than to believe in the billions to one chance of intelligent life just happening after a big bang!!! from fish to philosopher, i dont think so.
where are all the millions of transitional species that must have lived?
name one beneficial mutation that can be observed today? or even two? there must have been millions for evolution theory to be true.
explain to me how organs that have complex links are beneficial without the complete system in place. the eye for instance. itself is a complicated object, lens, cornea, iris etc etc then it needs a nerve and needs conecting to a brain which in turn needs a highly sophisticated area to interperet the info to tell us what we see. did all these massive cahnges mutate in one generation? if not how the hell did it eveolve as one missing link renders the eye useless and it would not pass on.
many other questions, not enough time!!!!
No transitional fossils ...? This just drives me freakin' nuts!
The following article was written by a Christian.
SCIENCE AND FAITH: ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS (Robert J. Schneider)... Anti-evolutionists continue to assert that the fossil record is incomplete and therefore poor evidence for common descent (e.g., Johnson, 1997). In truth, a very large number of intermediate forms have been found in the fossil record, so many that it is often difficult to determine when a transition occurs from one species or class of organisms to later descendents (NAS 14). Miller would go further and say, "In a very real sense, all fossil species within a line of descent are transitional forms in that they are anatomically intermediate in many features between earlier and later forms" (Miller, 2003, 173).
Let me cite just a few examples out of thousands. Over 250 species of the extinct order of therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) discovered in recent years have provided evidence of a transition from reptiles to mammals (Lamoureux 36). Going back even further in geologic time, paleontologists now understand more accurately the evolution of creatures moving from water to land. Fossils of a group of rhipidistian fishes, the panderichythids, provide evidence for the evolution of amphibians from fish (Miller, 1994, 117). A growing number of fossils of extinct ungulates (hoofed mammals) illustrate the later evolution of legs to flippers in the earliest species of whales, supporting this transition from land to water creatures that took place some 35 mya (Miller, 2003, 173-176). The transitional pathways that led from dinosaurs to birds have also been greatly enhanced in recent years by new finds. Fossils of a group of small theropod dinosaurs called maniraptorans are now identified as the ancestors of birds. The famous Archaeopteryx shares numerous features with these maniraptorans, a genus that includes among its species the velociraptors of "Jurassic Park" fame. While Archaeopteryx differs from modern birds in several ways, the discovery in just the past several years of new fossil birds has provided a subclass, called enantiornithes, showing transitional features between Archaeopteryx and more modern birds. Thanks to these newly discovered transition fossils, "birds are now recognized as simply a specialized group of feathered dinosaurs!" (Miller, 2003, p. 176-178).
Given that the discovery of new fossil species continues at a rapid and accelerating pace, paleontologists are confident that more and more transitional species will connect more clearly the pathways of macroevolution. The preservation of remains is haphazard, and the fossil record is likely never to be completed to the extent paleontologists desire and anti-evolutionists demand; yet it is far more complete than it was one hundred and fifty years ago (Ayala 29-30). Like a huge and growing chorus of voices, these numerous fossils cry out that the concept of common descent accurately describes the systematic development of new species over time.
Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, has noted that, "Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. This is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science" (151; cf. Miller, 2003, p. 180).
REST HERE
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp A classic. Even the Christian apologetic site Answers in Genesis says this a question creationists should not use!
*Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...nt_use.asp#apesHere's a couple more: "If we evolved from apes, why there still apes?" That's on their list as well. Oh, and "Evolution is just a theory!"
Okay, science 101 boys and YEC:
Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.Response:
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.htmlThe horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
Dinosaur-bird transitions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.htmlTransitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220.html An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Links:Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.htmlReferences:Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.htmlMalmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.
Further Reading:
Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical)
Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation".
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge.
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evob...p/tranform.htmlGodfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.
Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute,
http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm ,
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2.
Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.
Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.
*Scientific America: 15 Answers to Creationist NonsenseOpponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up By John Rennie (editor in chief of Scientific American)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils -- creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds -- it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features . They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.----Scientific America (link above)THE EYE?! ARGH!
... First, creationists trot out that old saw about how "nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all." Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development," from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes.
Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?--Professor Richard DawkinsGod almighty ... TAKE OFF YOUR JESUS GOGGLES AND PICK UP A FREAKING BOOK, WILL YOU?!
Great resources on Evolution. From PBS' award-wining "Evolution" Series...
Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.htmlEvolution multimedia library
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.htmlFrequently Asked Questions About Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.htmlLEARN SOME GD SCIENCE!
Sorry for yelling.
Sean
peace
I said i went to another church, because the previous church I belonged to wouldn't have any of my questions I asked. so for another year i went to a church where they almost answered any qustion you asked. but after that, i decided I didn't agree with christianity. and i've never read the hundu or muslim holy books, and I don't think I ever will because I'm comfortable with what i beleive now. 
the best thing to do is to follow what your heart tells you to...since as you said god is in us all...may you make the right choice and be happy, no matter what!
