Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Darwin was a smart man. Millions and millions of fossils and 150 years later, no transitional fossils exist. Theory extinct!
You're leaving out a huge amount of information that you're either not aware of or would rather ignore. Every time that I hear these proclamations about the fossil record I always wonder why the creationists can't seem to explain why the geological deposits always leave the modern mammals at the top of the heap and leave the extinct animals such as the dinosaurs neatly layered far below in a separate strata of material that is much older. If all of the animals and plants were created all at once then why is it that we can't find a layer of fossils that includes all of them in the same place? The obvious reason is that they existed at different times. This is truly a question that can be answered by a reasonably intelligent junior high school student. Life has changed over long periods of time. It's also a fact that we have many transitional fossils including the ancestors of modern human beings.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 22 days ago)
27,631 posts, read 16,115,213 times
Reputation: 19027
No transitional fossils, sorry.
"evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it."
H.S. Lipson
"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
"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"
Darwin, Origin of species
Darwin was a smart man. Millions and millions of fossils and 150 years later, no transitional fossils exist. Theory extinct!
I can't seem to find that particular writing, please reference a page number please. However, I must point out that it seems that you are quote-mining again. I assume this is the quote you are talking about, correct me if I'm wrong:
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?]
However, if such is the case, than you have effectively, AGAIN, left out the entire piece to serve your own purpose and not the purpose of what Darwin actually said. This is the entire transcript!
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated.
I kinda find it funny, Thomas only believed that Jesus resurrected when he could see him with his own eyes and feel the wounds with his own fingers. So when a believer of the religion proclaims to have faith without seeing any actual physical evidence he gets praised for it. But when a scientist offers a theory with only partial evidence they disclaim it on the fact that there is no actual evidence.
Physical evidence and scientific findings are obviously not good enough for some so I think I will just bow out of this subject. When it comes down to it if people want to believe hard enough they can make everything into a "theory". Maybe babies aren't born by sperm and egg coming together, maybe it's just something people breeze in or the kind of wallpaper on the wall which make it happen or a certain word we utter in the other's ear at the right moment ? Maybe just a random event which happens every time ?
Maybe you and I don't exist and are just figments of our own imagination. Do we exist at all ? Is there really any proof of that ? Just because we feel we do, maybe it's just a great hoax the universe ( if that exists too of course) is playing on us all.
If you try hard enough everything we know is just a theory.
What's actually dead is creationism, not evolution. It's just that a great many religious people, particularly Americans, have a great distrust of science. Of course they might bend the rules a little if they are in need of modern medical attention for something like a shot of insulin or bypass surgery. I guess some of the scientists who invented these things aren't so bad, even if they do believe in evolution.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 22 days ago)
27,631 posts, read 16,115,213 times
Reputation: 19027
I am facinated with science, one of my favorite subjects. I just thank God that he gave us such a fascinating playground. A few questions science cant answer:
Where when how and why did life come from dead matter?
Where did space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
I think you'll find many scientists are agnostic on these matters, but that this is a temporary state. In other words, the very nature of science is evolutionary, and one day we may know - beyond a reasonable doubt - where matter originated.
But, for what it's worth, I think it's reasonable to also ask where a specified deity came from.
I am facinated with science, one of my favorite subjects. I just thank God that he gave us such a fascinating playground. A few questions science cant answer:
Where when how and why did life come from dead matter?
Where did space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Its Supernatural. Our rules no longer apply.
So what does this have to do with the OP? You asked if evolution was dead. Evolution does not refute the existence of god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kinda find it funny, Thomas only believed that Jesus resurrected when he could see him with his own eyes and feel the wounds with his own fingers. So when a believer of the religion proclaims to have faith without seeing any actual physical evidence he gets praised for it. 
But when a scientist offers a theory with only partial evidence they disclaim it on the fact that there is no actual evidence.
