Replies

"If evolution took place, should we not expect in the fossil record to see hundreds of thousands of well defined transiant forms?
This post (#65), by a freeper named VadeRetro, gives you what you're looking for:"

Thanks. But I was not seeking the answer. I was presenting a very abreviated statment for others to consider.

As I write this I peer up and one of my libary shelves that contain many books on creation verse evolution etc., biology, chemistry, books etc..
I have written hundreds of thousands of lines of well thought out arguments to many folks over the years, based on the extremely complexities of living organisms, the many well exhusted early earth models, which each expert tears apart the others theory, with scientific facts, on and on.
It is clear in my mind as to the possiblities of living things ever had somehow come from raw materials. And what I don't want to get into, but let readers that are interested seek the knowledge, things like large areas of mountain tops that could never had just somehow been inverted etc., by various geoforces, to contain Cambrian fossile beds that sit on top of "much latter" beds that contain fossils of Cenozoic Era, etc.. In other words, how can miles and miles of mountain tops have much earlier simple forms sitting on top of much more modern forms.
The lists go on and on. Two much would be required to
even start addressing the huge holes in all levels of evolutionary thought. Not to mention the cosmological models etc.. Where where the thirty or more feet of moon dust (particles over billions of years landing on the moon surface), that all the scientist where so worried about when our first moon vehicle landed on the moon. Neal sure did not sink into what was advertised by all to be a problem. The lists of things one can question just go on and on. Super suspect radiological dating systems. Measure one sample from a site to be lets say 500,000 years old, move five feet to same site, sample another identical piece of some mineral and find it to be perhaps a thousand years old. BUT still make it clear to the folks that watch Nova, whatever, that some "early representative" of man, lived at that spots some 500,000 years ago.
The information is out there, for those that seek it. One only listen to like level geologist, bio-chemist etc., and see how much that is touted as fact is not fact at all.
But do be carefull. There are bad guys on both sides of the isle. And yes some things that sound real good for the creationist can be proven to be a bunch of baloney. It is a two edged sword. That is why I threw out the original things about all the missing fossils intermediatory forms.
It is too hard for any evolultionist to make their case, based on the non-existence of those transitory forms.
But thanks for your feedback.