Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Chiapet
Nathan's method of research (from a weekend thread)

by Nathan Zachary

I condensed much of the information I gathered to put in MY post... It is only a post however, not a book which would require a bibliography.

by Randall Niles
Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin's own words, if his theory of "macro-evolution" were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none -- not one true transitional specimen has ever been found. Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin’s own words, if his theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none – not one true transitional specimen has ever been found.
Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin’s theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none.
Author Luther Sunderland saw the problems with the fossil record, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. Author Luther Sunderland saw the same issue, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another.
Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required. OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. In my research, I haven’t found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin’s own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn’t happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800’s, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn’t provide the support Darwin himself required.
Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we've discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can't have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. In the case of evolution theory however, rather than admit the theory is flawed beyond repair, they ignore the evidence of inteligent design to protect their religion. Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we’ve discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can’t have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. To me, that’s huge!

58 posted on 10/03/2005 8:49:19 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: js1138

Ah yes...plagiarism isn't really plagiarism if you add or subtract a sentence or two, right?


60 posted on 10/03/2005 8:53:29 AM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: js1138
Nathan's method of research (from a weekend thread)

GREAT catch!

Another Anti-Evo Serial Plagiarizer nailed again....

73 posted on 10/03/2005 9:12:49 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: js1138

It wouldn't be the first time one of the oh-so-honest creationist types tried to pass off someone else's writings as his own. I guess they figure it can't be a sin because God didn't say "thou shalt not plagerize."


105 posted on 10/03/2005 10:34:26 AM PDT by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: js1138
Perhaps Nathan Zachary and Randall Niles were both touched by the same intellegent creator and wrote the exact same words independent of each other? I just calculated on the back of my hand and the odds are better than a blended frog putting itself back together and furthermore, there's no such thing as a dishonest creationist right?
126 posted on 10/03/2005 11:18:49 AM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson