googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 4

When I began this series, my plan was that each post I write would cover 2 points of Tyler Francke's article, THE TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL. There are still 4 points left to cover but one of them is so ridiculous, I don't need to waste much time covering it, which means there are only 3 more that need to be addressed. Point number 7, though, has a lot of different directions I could go so I'm going to spend this post covering just this one point and will cover the next 3 point in my final post.

7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.

Another one that you may have heard from our friend, Banana Ray. In his film “EvG” (which is subtitled, “Shaking the Foundations of Faith”), he underscores this supposed parallel by asking his victims — oh, I mean, “interview subjects” — ridiculous questions like “Are you a strong believer in evolution?” and “When did you first start believing in evolution?” His point, as he goes on to explain, is that anyone who accepts the truth of evolution based on the testimony of expert scientists is relying on “blind faith” in the same way atheists accuse religious people of doing.

There's a little confusion about the difference between belief and faith. Generally, people attach a religious connotation to the word faith but I don't agree that's entirely appropriate. Let me give you an analogy. In English, we have the words belief and believe. One is a noun and one is a verb but we understand that they basically carry the same root meaning. Are you with me so far? OK. Now, in the New Testament, the Greek words faith and believe are basically the same too!

The noun, pistis (πίστις, Strong's word 4102), is generally translated as “faith” rather than “belief.” Its cognate verb, pisteuo (πιστεύω, Strong's word 4100), is generally translated as “believe” rather than “have faith.” So, as we read the Bible, believing and having faith is a distinction without a difference. Do we believe in God? Do we believe Jesus is the Christ? Do we believe the things in the Bible? If so, then we have faith.

The most famous chapter on faith in the Bible is probably Hebrews 11. Hebrews 11:7 says, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house.In other words, Noah believed God about something that had not happened. He built the Ark and was saved as a result. He was literally saved by his faith!

Christians believe pretty much for the same reasons anyone believes anything – they are convinced that what they believe is true. I believe Jesus lived, died, and rose again. I believe when I repented and accepted Him as my Lord, that He forgave my sins. I believe that He is seated on the right hand of the Father, even now, making intercession for me. This isn't wishful thinking. This isn't something that I hope is true without having any good reason to believe that it is. Romans 1:19-20 says, [T]hat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Everything I can see in the creation and everything that I've ever learned about history convinces me that what I believe is true!

Though Francke says that “blind faith” is frowned upon from a secular perspective, he seems to endorse blind faith when it comes to believing the Bible. Francke said, 'Blind faith' does indeed have pejorative connotations in secular usage, but RayCo lends credence to these undertones in a way that no True Christian™ should. That’s because the Bible talks about “blind” religious faith, and its description is anything but negative. In John 20:29, Jesus declares that those who “believe without seeingare “blessed” (contrasting them with doubting” Thomas, who asked for proof).

Francke is misrepresenting the Bible. What Francke doesn't seem to get is that Thomas was refusing to believe the testimony of the apostles! They had seen the Savior alive but Thomas refused to believe until he saw Jesus for himself. This is the same attitude many skeptics express today. Jesus's ministry on earth only lasted a short time. The vast majority of people in history were not alive during the few, short yes ars of His Incarnation. If the standard for believing in Christ is that we see Him with our own eyes, then most of humanity is doomed. However, that's not the standard. We have the written accounts of His resurrection and we can believe the things written in the gospels and be saved.

John 19:33-35 says, But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”

John is giving details about the death of Jesus. He is establishing his credibility as an eyewitness to the event. Later, John saw Jesus alive again. I don't believe in the Resurrection because some wild-eyed preacher told me about a man I'd never heard of, who rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. I believe because I have the un-impeached testimony of someone who was there.

In John 17:18-20, Jesus prayed, As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; Jesus prayed specifically for the sake of the millions through history who believed in Him because of testimonies of the apostles. We should do what Jesus said and believe in Him because of what has been handed down to us by those who knew Him!

The irony is that, while Francke claims blind faith is necessary to believe the Bible, he himself seems to only believe those parts of the Bible which he feels has the doubting Thomas kind of proof. He doesn't believe in creation on "blind faith," for example. Instead, he has adopted the secular theories of proud atheists and has twisted the Scriptures to accommodate their godless theories. How sad.

Next, Francke said, Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a big supporter of critical thought — and of an engaged populace that rationally considers the information it receives before accepting it.

In his video, Evolution Vs God, Ray Comfort isn't necessarily trying to convince these people that their faith is just like Christian faith. He's trying to get these young people, mostly college students, to see that they claim to believe something and can't even cite a good reason why. Theirs is truly a blind faith. Obviously, the students in the video didn't rationally consider evolution. When Comfort pressed them about their belief in evolution, they couldn't name a single reason why they believed it.

Francke continued, But there are far worse people one could open one’s mind to than those who are sharing their expertise within the fields they have risen to the top of — especially when their conclusions are based on mountains of hard evidence that are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose to ignore it.

Do I need to remind Francke that the students in the video all claimed to be atheists?! The people to whom they've opened their minds are people like P.Z. Myers (also shown in the video). Myers, of course, zealously preaches atheism and attacks Christianity – young earth creationists in particular. You see, these young people have been sold a bill of goods. They have been taught that atheism is the default position of intellectual. The students in the video were quick to admit their atheism. Some seemed very smug, even proud of it. So I'm going to have to disagree and say, no, there is nothing worse than rejecting the truth of Jesus. Romans 1 talks about people who reject the truth of God and willingly believe a lie. Romans 1:22 says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

I remember myself at their age. I thought I knew everything. These students were so smug and boldly touted their atheism as though they were enlightened. When challenged by Ray Comfort on what they believed, they began to soften their position and rethink what they had been taught. If any of them came to Christ as a result, Francke should be glad! Instead, he ridicules Comfort and defends rabid theophobes like P.Z. Myers. This is why I cannot tolerate the false gospel of theistic evolution. I see far too many evolutionists who claim to be Christians, condemning brothers in Christ while praising unbelievers like Myers. Incredible!

Matthew 7:15-16, Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.”



Related posts:

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 3


5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.

This is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common. It involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life under normal circumstances) being used as evidence against the theory of evolution. Hear me on this, guys: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Strictly speaking, biological evolution does not address either the origin of life nor the origin of the universe. I get it. What evolutionists don't seem to get is that creationism does! So when we're talking about the origin of everything, we're comparing the miraculous explanation with the natural “explanations” of everything (I put explanations in quotation marks because there really are no compelling, scientific explanations of things like the origin of matter/energy or abiogenesis). In other words, we're comparing everything about origins and we're just calling the natural explanations, “evolution,” for the sake of brevity.  You see, in the evolution v. creation debate, “evolution” is sometimes used as a term of convenience – just like “evolutionist.” We're not limiting the discussion to just the common descent of all life from a single common ancestor, we're also talking about things like the origin of the supposed ancestor and the origin of time, matter, and space. There just isn't a convenient term that encompasses all secular theories of our origins so creationists sometimes lump them all into “evolution.”  And let's be honest, evolutionists – people who believe in evolution – invariably also believe in abiogenesis and the Big Bang.  It should be no surprise, then, that we describe their entire set of beliefs with a single term.  

Furthermore, even evolutionists sometimes use the term, evolution, in much the same way as creationists do. How many times have you heard the debate described as “evolution versus creationism?” Creation, as described in Genesis includes the origin of space/matter/time and the origin of life. So when evolutionists compare “evolution” with “creationism,” it has to include everything involved in both sets of belief.

I think it's strange that critics ever use this objection. I mean, let's face it, for something that's not part of their theory, they certainly spend a lot of time talking about it. For example, Berkley.edu has a web page called, Understanding Evolution, which begins with a section titled, “From soup to cells – the origin of life.” From that site, we read the following, Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.It seems, at least, that Berkley feels the origin of life is of special interest “within the field of evolutionary biology.” Also, I don't even need to point out all the biology text books that still include the Miller-Urey experiment from nearly 70 years ago! Why is such an old experiment, one which failed to produce life, still included in biology books if abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution?

They can't have it both ways. They spend time talking about the origin of life, yet when creationists point out there is no natural explanation for the origin of life, evolutionists retreat to, “well, that's not part of the theory.” This objection is obviously a red herring. Evolutionists don't like to be called out for clinging to an idea that is virtually indistinguishable from “spontaneous generation,” which has been debunked for more than a century. They know the origin of life is a legitimate question, which is why they research it, but when pressed on the issue, they want to end the discussion.

Related posts:


6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.

I think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory” in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in science. In popular usage, “theory” means a “hunch” or a “guess” — and it’s the opposite of a “fact.” It’s conjecture, a shot in the dark that has just as much chance (and probably even more so) of being wrong as it has of being right.

I'm pretty sure Francke speaks English, right? Because, when he makes comments like this, it's like he's not familiar with the language at all. Since when does “theory” ever mean “a shot in the dark that has just as much chance of being wrong as it has of being right”? If you google the definition of theory, it says, a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.Francke's unusual definition is merely a straw man that he can use to ridicule people who use the criticism, “evolution is only a theory.”

Now, the scientific community claims to be a little more stringent about which set of ideas qualifies to be called a theory. To call something a “scientific” theory supposedly means that set of ideas has been repeatedly tested confirmed through observation and experimentation. Of course, they loose all credibility when they use the term, “theory of abiogenesis.” Abiogenesis has never been observed anywhere. We don't know how life began so there can be no scientific theory of abiogenesis. All we have are theories, plausible explanations based on general principles, about how it might have happened. In other words, the scientific community frequently uses the word theory in much the same way they harp on the general public for using it!

This goes back to what I was saying in my first post of this series: we examine the evidence and invent theories to explain the evidence. That's all we ever do because we can't observe theories. Evolutionists frequently want to conflate the evidence with their conclusions about the evidence. They want to blur the line between objective facts we can observe and the conclusions we make about those facts.

To illustrate this point, here's an analogy I've used before. You can open a carton of eggs and see there are a dozen. That's an objective fact. But why are there a dozen? It's easier to count by 10 than by 12 so why don't we sell eggs in cartons of 10? I believe it's because there are more ways to divide 12 evenly than 10. That's my theory – my explanation of why eggs are sold in dozens. I could interview farmers, do historical research, or even try a google search. Maybe my theory will be confirmed or maybe it will be falsified. Either way, why there are a dozen eggs will never be held in the same regard as the fact that there are a dozen eggs.

In an interview with Larry King, theophobe, Bill Nye made the following comment:

My concern has always been you can't use tax dollars intended for science education to teach something akin to the earth is 10,000 years old. To... 'cause that's just wrong. It's very much analogous to saying the earth is flat. I mean, you can show the earth is not flat; you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old.

Nye is saying he can show us the age of the earth just like he can show us the shape of the earth. No he cant! We can observe certain features of the earth and draw conclusions about its age but we can't observe our conclusions any more than we can open a carton of eggs and observe why there are a dozen!

When a creationist says, it's only a “theory,” he's expressing his doubts about evolution as an explanation of the objective, observable facts. He's drawing a distinction about what we know from observation and what we know from inference.  It's as simple as that. Then some evolutionist responds with a technical definition of the term “theory,” and thinks he's made some kind of substantive statement. Please spare me.

Related posts:

Monday, May 28, 2018

Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 2


3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.

In his article, THE TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL, Tyler Francke said, “At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” Francke has repeated one of the 10 lies told by evolutionists. In fact, this is perhaps one of the better examples of the lie; I think I'll probably cite it many times in future posts.

Not all change is equal. For a species to evolve, new traits would have to be added to the population. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, for example, you would have to add feathers. The supposed, first common ancestor had neither scales nor feathers. Neither did it have skin or bones or blood or organs of any kind. To turn a molecule into a man, it would require a millions of years long parade of new features constantly being added. Natural selection, on the other hand, can only remove traits already present in the population. It should be agonizingly clear that you cannot add traits by continuously removing traits.

In the famous example of peppered moth “evolution,” the ratio of light/dark moths changed over time in response to changes in the environment. Some people call this “microevolution” and it does fit the technical definition of evolution. But please explain to me how birds continuously eating one color of moth can ever add new colors to the population? You cannot add colors by continuously removing colors no matter how long you do it.

Francke said, “It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very large changes.”

Evolutionists like Francke would have us believe that birds continuously eating one color of moth could eventually change it into something that is not a moth – it just has to continue for a long enough time. What sane person would believe that?!

If evolutionists want to convince people that evolution is possible, they need to stop talking about examples like the peppered moth and start showing us examples of trait-adding mutations. There's a reason they don't is the same reason. It's because examples of natural selection removing traits are common place while examples of trait-adding mutations are scare or non-existent. By continuing to repeat the lie that any change over time can result in big change, evolutionists are either ignorant of their own theory or are preying on the ignorance of the less informed.

Related posts:


4. You think mutations are always negative.

This is another one of those incredibly common and completely untrue statements that nothing more than a few minutes’ research on the Internet could have corrected. The truth is that mutations in nature are usually neutral — i.e., they have no effect on the gene or resulting protein.

Francke should be more careful with his wording. Even “neutral” mutations have an effect on the gene. What he means to say is that neutral mutations seem to have no effect on the host animal. This is a significant point and not merely a game of semantics. In a real sense, genetic mutations are always negative in that they are mistakes or errors in the genome. Even if they seem to have no effect on the host they are still present in the gene and will be passed along to the offspring. Over many generations, the mutations will continue to accumulate and there becomes a greater danger of some mutation becoming expressed.

Expressed mutations in genes are usually called genetic disorders. My son, for example, has a fairly ordinary genetic disorder – he's color blind. He probably inherited it from his maternal grandfather who is also color blind. It's not a debilitating disorder and my son leads a fairly normal life. There are occasions, though, when his color blindness has caused a certain amount of difficulty. Once, when he was younger, he followed me out into the parking lot of our church and he was attempting to get into the wrong car. My car was red and he was trying the door of a green car.

Some genetic disorders are very serious – even life threatening. Francke mentioned sickle-cell anemia, which is a genetic disorder that causes red blood cells to be deformed. People with sickle-cell suffer a variety of symptoms and tend to live shorter lives. But it is true that the deformed, blood cells cannot host malaria parasites so people who have sickle-cell cannot have malaria. Perhaps this is an advantage in environments where malaria is a real threat. Otherwise, the small benefit of malaria immunity does not outweigh the host of maladies people with sickle-cell suffer. It's a wonder how evolutionists continue using this as an example of “evolution.”

We actually have observed several genetic mutations that convey a benefit to the hosts in certain environments – blind cave fish, wingless beetles, and tusk-less elephants are examples. However, nearly all of these represent mutations where the host creature looses something (like eyes, wings, or tusks). Furthermore, the mutation is usually weeded out of the gene pool when the animal is reintroduced back into the general population. Even so, examples of mutations removing traits from animals doesn't really help evolution which requires animals to acquire new traits. That is, a fish born without eyes doesn't explain how a dinosaur could acquire feathers. The blind fish may have an advantage in a cave where there's no light but it really doesn't help the theory of evolution in the least.

Why do evolutionists continue to hold up such weak examples of “beneficial” mutations? They're certainly not convincing examples of “evolution.” It's for the same reason I've already stated above: examples of trait-adding mutations are astonishingly scare. When I ask for examples of new traits being observed in a population, I only ever hear the same 3-4 questionable examples. If evolution were true, new traits would have to appear in populations fairly frequently. We should have plenty of examples – but we don't. That's why they continuously trot out the same few over and over and over and over.

There's one more thing about mutations that spell trouble for evolution. For every beneficial mutations that might happen, there are far, far more neutral or harmful mutations that occur. A creature may have 1,000 neutral or harmful mutations to every one beneficial mutation. Why can't evolutionists see the obvious problem with this? The genome is deteriorating 1,000 faster than it's improving. For a creature to inherit just two beneficial mutations means there would be 1,000,000 neutral or harmful mutations! To inherit 3 successful mutations means there would be 1,000,000,000 unsuccessful mutations. How long could such a wasteful process continue until the genome becomes to corrupt to sustain life?

Yikes!

Related posts:


Friday, May 25, 2018

Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 1


I came across an article the other day that listed THE TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL. It's written by Tyler Francke, who also wrote 10 THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS NO YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST CAN ANSWER (all 10 of which I answered here). It seems Francke has a penchant for Top 10 lists with presumptuous titles. Anyway, I thought I'd write a reply and, so, went through my usual, internal struggle – should I write a series or not? Once again, I chose to write a series. Sigh. I intend to cover 2 points per post so the entire series shouldn't be more than 5 posts long.

It's a common fallacy suggested by evolutionists that creationists don't believe evolution because they don't understand evolution. It's a classic No True Scotsman argument where the critic is basically saying, “Everyone who understands evolution believes it.” No matter how well a creationist might understand the theory, unless he believes it, the critic will continue to accuse him of not understanding it. Worse yet, critics often accuse creationists of lying. To ardent evolutionists, it's impossible to imagine how anyone can understand evolution and still sincerely disagree with it.

Now, I'll admit there might be some things about evolution that some creationists misunderstand. Let's face it – no one is an expert in everything and most people aren't evolutionary biologists. However, I would say that the average, lay creationist understands evolution about as well as the average evolutionist. It's a fact that most creationists went to public schools and learned about evolution while sitting in the same classrooms as evolutionists. What I find amusing is that some evolutionists are very forgiving of people who misunderstand the theory as long as those people believe the theory. I can sort of understand why a person might disagree with something he doesn't understand but is it any better for a person to be zealously committed to a theory he doesn't understand?

Consider this too, whether or not a person understands something is not evidence for or against that thing. Some subjects are complicated and even if there are things I don't understand about it, doesn't mean I'm wrong about the things I do understand. I may not be able to write a scientific paper on gravity but I know what happens if I drop an egg. If someone else wrote a scientific paper saying that gravity is an illusion and he included several, complicated, mathematical formulas to prove his point, it wouldn't matter if I don't understand the math. I still know what happens when I drop an egg. The truth of any theory doesn't rise or fall on any person's ability to understand it. Reality doesn't care what we think about it.

In short, the 10 points listed here are primarily straw men arguments of creationists' positions. Rather than pointing out where any creationist may be wrong, I think they are more successful in revealing the flawed – even deceptive – arguments frequently used by evolutionists who try to shame or embarrass creationists into being silent. The article should have been titled, 10 Stupid Arguments Evolutionists Use Against Creationists.

Are we ready? Then let's get started!

1. You think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument against it.

If you think about it, this point is rather hilarious. It's basically saying that, just because we've never observed something, that's not a good reason to believe it doesn't exist. //RKBentley scratches his head// Isn't it the critics who insist we should always be skeptical? Aren't they the ones who “withhold judgment” until they see the evidence? Well, since we've never seen a dinosaur turn into a bird, or a fish turn into a frog, or an ape turn into a man, some people might question if it ever really happens.

Of course, just because I've never seen something happen doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'll admit. Things can happen when nobody is there to see. But if no one anywhere has seen a certain thing, to suspect it might not have happened is normal skepticism. To say, “it hasn't been observed” is a fair point.

Francke, on the other hand, wants to give the impression that science isn't about making observations. From the article he said, Making viable conclusions based on inferences from the available evidence is not at all unscientific, and it is this reasoning that has compelled us toward the theory of evolution.... This, of course, is the defining characteristic of science: Not that is observable and repeatable, but that it is testable and falsifiable. [Bold removed from original]

I would ask Francke how does one infer anything from the evidence unless he can observe it? How can we test and falsify theories except by repeatable experimentation? What Francke is doing – deliberately, I believe – is conflating theory with evidence. Evolutionists do this all the time. What we observe is evidence – a fossil, a rock, an animal, or whatever. We can only examine evidence by observation. We then invent theories that try to explain the evidence. In the quote above, the “viable conclusions” we can infer is what other people call the theory of evolution and the “available evidence” are the things we observe (like fossils, rock strata, ratios of radioactive elements, etc).

Evolutionists understand the difference between making observations and drawing conclusions even though they usually refuse to admit it. Did you catch when Franke said, If the idea (that “scientific evidence must be both observable and repeatable”) were carried to its logical conclusion, it would cripple not only the study of evolution, but every line of historical inquiry. He has unwittingly conceded the thing that other evolutionists have stubbornly denied – namely that there really is a distinction between the science done in the lab and what some creationists call, “historical science.”

In the famous Ham v. Nye debate, Bill Nye said the following:

So here tonight we are going to have two stories, and we can compare Mr. Ham's story to the story from the outside, what I call mainstream science. The question here tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable? So let me ask you, what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? You'd be home watching CSI TV show, CSI-Petersburg. I think that's coming. And on CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here.

The fact that there is a qualitative difference between studying events from the past and studying things in the present should be self evident. Indeed, it is self evident and evolutionists simply avoid acknowledging it because it clearly undermines their arguments. It's perfectly valid to point out that evolution is a conclusion that is being made about past events and not a thing we can observe. Let's be very clear - we can't observe theories. Ever!

Related posts:


2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.

I wouldn't say there are no transitional fossils. Instead, I would say there are a scarcity of unequivocal examples compared to the number that must have existed if evolution were true. One sub-point in the over-arching theory of evolution, for example, is that dinosaurs evolved to become birds. According to this point, the forelimbs of dinosaurs were modified over many generations to become wings. If this were true, there would have to have been an enormous number of generations between “fully arm” and “fully wing.” Indeed, there would have been more of the part-are/part-wing forms than either arm or wing. Charles Darwin commented about this in his book. He described the hypothesized transitional forms as “infinitely numerous connecting links” and said the following.

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?”

Darwin understood that, if his theory were true, transitional forms should fill every stratum of rock. We shouldn't be able to turn over a shovel of dirt without finding one. Darwin even remarked that the absence of transitional fossils was, perhaps, “the most obvious and gravest objection” to his theory.

Darwin blamed the glaring lack of transitional fossils on “the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” In other words, these creatures lived, but since fossilization is allegedly such a rare event, there just weren't any fossils made of them. How convenient. His “just so” story, though, doesn't hold any water when you think about what we do find in the fossil record. There are literally trillions of fossils in the world and we've found hundreds – maybe thousands – of dinosaurs and birds. There are plenty of arms and plenty of wings. There are virtually none of the imagined in-between forms.

Several years back, National Geographic published an articled titled, New Fossil: Link Between Fish and Land Animals? The whole point of the article is how scientists may have finally found a transitional sea-to-land fossil. Let me direct you to the following passage from that article:

The late Devonian period has is a rich fossil history of lobed fishes.... After the Devonian the fossil record disappears, at least for a while—20-30 million years. Only three informative fossils dating back to this time have been found. When the fossil record resumes roughly 25 million years later, there was already a tremendous variety of tetrapod landforms. Ancestors of modern mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds had already evolved and were diverging along distinct branches.

That paragraph is worth rereading. First, we have “rich fossil history” of fish. Next we have “a tremendous variety of tetrapod landforms.” And we have virtually no fossils in between! Let that sink in!

But, yes. Evolutionists have a few dozen, maybe even a couple of hundred fossils they've dubbed as transitional. Big whoop. They're hardly compelling. Sure, I could arrange some species in a way to make them appear to be a progression. A flying squirrel could be resemble a hypothetical transition between squirrels and bats but of course it isn't. Likewise, there are a handful of species that could resemble a cross between two different kinds of creatures. But that isn't enough to fill the enormous gaps between the groups.

Evolutionists need to come to grips with this weakness in their theory. If evolution were true, transitional forms should be the rule – not the exception. There is no “clear progression” of fish-to-frog, or dino-to-bird, or ape-to-man in the fossil record!

Related posts: