Replies

I love Missler. He can get rambly at times, but he's brilliant at digging out such fascinating biblical issues that get almost no coverage in mainstream Christianity. Have you read his book on the (many) hidden "codes" in the Bible? Not the popularized/sensationalized ELS Bible codes, but rather the examination of the very structure of the Bible, the use of numbers in it, etc. etc.

As for this thread, the original poster should prepare for fervent attack by the resident evolutionists. They have no remotely credible answer for the problem posed by the reality that the incredible majority of all mutations are detrimental, not beneficial. And when they don't have answers, their standard response is IDIOT! Or, "learn about creation in Sunday School, but keep it out of science class." Or any of their other mind-numbingly boring and tired retorts.

Here's reality: Were Darwin alive today, he himself would laugh at his own theory. For he recognized that the big gaping hole in it was the lack of transitional fossils. Not goofy nonsensical claims of transitional evidence that we see today, not lineups of ape and human skulls that purport to be a sequence, not composite fossils assembled from myriad fragments, but real and unambiguous and OBVIOUS transitionals. Darwin knew that for his theory to be true, the fossil record would have to be FILLED with such transitionals. And he assumed that as the methodologies and technologies of archaeology improved, that explosion of obvious transitionals would indeed be forthcoming. Reality, of course, is that here we are 150 years later, and there's still not ONE such obvious transitional to support the theory as it is worshiped today. Not a single solitary ONE. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual objectivity would at a glance know that the theory just doesn't mesh with the evidence. Not at all.

Unfortunately, Satan's blinders are thick and tight, now worn even by some Christians who relegate the history of the Bible to allegory and metaphor only, because they're so afraid the world will snicker at them if they elect to go with what God said instead.

Here's something worthy of snickering: In Job 40:17, the behemoth was discussed, including the description he moves his tail like a cedar. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the behemoth discussed in the Bible was a huge animal, possibly the hippopotamus.

A hippo had a "tail like a cedar?" Riiiiiight.

Reality, of course, is that here we are 150 years later, and there's still not ONE such obvious transitional to support the theory as it is worshiped today. Not a single solitary ONE.

You guys keep saying there are no transitions, NOT ONE.

Here is a transitional (a real handsome one too). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html