One of these days, some genius will work evolution, drugs and Lincoln into a single post. EASILY good for 10,000 replies.
Posted on 07/03/2002 6:41:11 PM PDT by gcruse
Will wonders never cease?
They also like to cover their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and scream "Therearenotransitionalfossilstherearenotransitionalfossilstherearenotransitionalfossils" for hours on end.
The other fun thing is that they won't accept evolution till EVERY single fossil of EVERY organism is found; they complain about "missing links" between organism A and organism E; when someone finds a fossil transitional between A and E, let's call it organism C, then they start frantically raving about "there's no transitional fossils" because no one has found a fossil for organisms B and D.
There they go again, playing the "evidence" card.
...and two more gaps created.
y also like to cover their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and scream "Therearenotransitionalfossilstherearenotransitionalfossilstherearenotransitionalfossils" for hours on end.
Actually over the years many evolutionists themselves have admitted the fossil record reveals no transitional forms.
In their book on the principles of paleontology, the two evolutionists, Raup and Stanley say;
"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery; commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms." ( D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley, "Principles of Paleontology", 1971, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 306.)
The botanical evolutionist Professor E.J.H Corner of the Cambridge University Botany school said; " I still think, that to be unprejudiced, the fossil record of the plants is in favor of special CREATION." ( E.J.H. Corner, "Contemporary Botanical Thought", A. M. MacLeod and L.S.Cobley, eds., 1961, Quadrangle Books, Chicago.)
The famous evolutionist, Dr. Clark says;
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record or previous animal life upon earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediatebetween the various major groups."
( A.H. Clark, "The New Evolution: Zoogenesis", 1930, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, USA p. 189.)
"No transitional forms" is incorrect. There are a few.
And this one is a major find.
Must make for some mighty waxy fingers. Oh well, it's a free country.
Unfortunately, what some people accept as "evidence" doesn't pass the laugh test.
Might this not simply be a crocodile, or a variation thereof? If so, how does this prove evolution? The crocodile is considered a prehistoric animal, which means that this creature has not evolved one iota over the course of millions of years. The BS Detector is off the charts on this one.
This article has the same feel to it as the articles about environmentalists who claim to have found new and even more convincing proof of global warming and its causes. Most of the findings, upon closer review, ususally end up being bogus and formed to fit a certain theory, with nary a peep being heard again from the authors. I suspect this will be the case with our little crocodile friend.
Is the assumption that it lived on land warranted, given the evidence?
If an observor who didn't assume that "evolution has happened" found the same fossil, what could he/she conclude, based on the same evidence?
Brian.
One of these days, some genius will work evolution, drugs and Lincoln into a single post. EASILY good for 10,000 replies.
Oh,the poster I was responding to claimed there were several million fossils showing transitional forms.
You say there are a few.
That is of course debatable.
The idea that there are several million is simply absurd.
Yeah, that's got legs...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.