OLAADEGBU:

@Huxley, I hope this explains why your bunny rabbit has gone missing.

Fossil Records
Era Period Time (million) years
Cenozoic Quarternary 1.8 - present
Teritary 6.5 – 1.8
Mesozoic Cretaceous 14.5 – 6.5
Jurassic 208 – 14.5
Triassic 245 - 208
Paleozoic Permian 290 - 245
Carboniferous 363 - 290
Devonian 410 - 363
Silurian 440 - 410
Ordovician 505 - 440
The foundation Cambrian 544 - 505
Precambrian 650 - 544

The first issue to consider of what we find in the fossil record are:

- 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
- 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
- 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
- The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)

- A. Snelling, Where are all the human fossils? Creation 14(1):28-33, December, 1991; J. Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2002, 71.

You can now see why your bunny rabbit has gone missing.

This is what Ariel Roth wrote about the Cambrian Explosion
Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), Origins, 1998, pg. 184.
“The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation if not ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”

See what Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), What Evolution Is, 2001, pg. 14.
“Given the fact of Evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the palaeontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”

Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing.

The question again is, why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?
I already have a faith. Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.

Now that we have an understanding of the foundation of evolution… Why is evolution without a foundation? Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate

Therefore, it is not only rational but equally reasonable to believe that God, not unknown events created all life after its kind.

So you accept the pre-cambrian is the period 650 - 544 MYA? What sort of animals does one predominantly find in this period? Can you produce some references?

The question again is, why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?

There's plenty of evidence. You just don't want to see it.

Looking again at your copy and paste up there:

95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
- 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
- 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
- The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)

- A. Snelling, Where are all the human fossils?

That's written as if it's some great conspiracy, but in fact, there's a concrete reason why most fossils are marine organisms and it has to do with the way fossils are formed. They require a layer of sediment to cover them and preserve them. This is uncommon on land but obviously very common in the ocean. It's no secret, just plain scientific fact.
There's also another explanation that illuminates the theory of Evolution and explains why there are so few vertebrate fossils compared to invertebrates. It's plain simple. Vertebrates are newcomers to Planet Earth on the Evolutionary Scale. Ocean dwellers have been around for billions of years. You'd therefore expect the 95% more shellfish and corals.
Plain, inescapable logic.


Yet again you've just copied and pasted crap without even understanding the subject.
Read up on how fossils are formed and you can examine for yourself why there are so few vertibrate specimens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils

Asking the right question would be where did the dinosaurs come from?

According to evolutionists the millions of years ascribed to the fossil record. The origin of Dinosaurs which they claim to be 220 million years ago elicits the question, where did the dinosaurs come from?

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, Dr. David Norman, 1985, p. 186.

“The question of the origin of dinosaurs is one that has puzzled paleontologists for many years.”

Dr Norman is a lecturer in Zoology

This is a quote from an authoritative book:
“Where did dinosaurs come from?  That apparently simple question has been the subject of intense debate amongst scientists for over 150 years, . . .”
The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, 1998, p.12

Lets look at the evidence they produce.  They claim Thecondonts “Small lizards that ran on two legs and gave rise to the giant reptiles collectively known as dinosaurs” – The Nature of Life, 1995.  The only evidence presented in any major biology textbook.

1. How could a small reptile evolve into a large dinosaur?
2. Shouldn’t there be thousands (millions) of intermediate fossils in the cambrian explosion?
3. Why don’t we see intermediate dinosaur forms in museums?

Great claims require real evidence.

Let me tell you what I believe, which is the Biblical Model:

“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. . .
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." 
                                                                                   Genesis 1:25,31
People and dinosaurs lived together.  The evolution story is based on faith not real evidence.  Gen.1:24-25,31; Job 40:15-24; 41; Isa.30:6;

If evolution is unable to provide the thousands of transitions for the origin of dinosaurs then it is without a foundation.
Now that we have an understanding of the foundation of evolution…  Why is evolution without a foundation?  Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate.

Why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?  I already have a faith.  Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.

Therefore, the logical deduction is that it is rational to believe that God, not unknown events created dinosaurs.

Bastage:

That's written as if it's some great conspiracy, but in fact, there's a concrete reason why most fossils are marine organisms and it has to do with the way fossils are formed. They require a layer of sediment to cover them and preserve them. This is uncommon on land but obviously very common in the ocean. It's no secret, just plain scientific fact.
There's also another explanation that illuminates the theory of Evolution and explains why there are so few vertebrate fossils compared to invertebrates. It's plain simple. Vertebrates are newcomers to Planet Earth on the Evolutionary Scale. Ocean dwellers have been around for billions of years. You'd therefore expect the 95% more shellfish and corals.
Plain, inescapable logic.

The above reason may be how an evolutionists sees it through his own spectacles, but a biblical creationists sees Noah's flood which happened about 4,500 years ago.

There's plenty of evidence. You just don't want to see it.

Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), and Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), both ardent evolutionists admitted that there was no evidence of how all the major animal phlya appeared at the same time in the geologic column and here you are bluffing to know more than them. Go ahead and produce the evidence if you feel you are in a better position than them.

huxley:

So you accept the pre-cambrian is the period 650 - 544 MYA? What sort of animals does one predominantly find in this period? Can you produce some references?

No, I don't.  The Geologic column does not exist in nature.  There is not one location on earth where you can take a spot and shovel, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the "perfect evolutionary order" which the evolutionists claim to be in.  The so called column only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who chose to believe it.  The Geologic Time Column is nothing more than evolutionary speculation and arbitrary opinion.  No where in the world is it to be found!

Yet again, just another copy and paste that comes from a source which knows absolutely nothing about fossilisation.

1. How could a small reptile evolve into a large dinosaur?

That's a ridiculous question. Creatures evolve into larger creatures all the time. We don't even need fossil evidence for this. We can look to mankind. Go back just a couple hundred years and you will see that people were much smaller than they are now. Over here in the UK, there are many old palaces. Go visit Hampton Court. See how small the beds are. See how small the ceilings are. See how small the doorways are. Or do you think god made those 200 years ago as well?

2. Shouldn’t there be thousands (millions) of intermediate fossils in the cambrian explosion?

Quite simply, there are intermediate fossils from the Cambrian Age. To go for quantity is totally misleading. It wouldn't matter if there were only one found - that would be enough. But the fact is that there are many examples of Cambrian intermediate fossils.

3. Why don’t we see intermediate dinosaur forms in museums?

Complete crap. Firstly there isn't even a definition of an "intermediate dinosaur form". Secondly, if it's what they're claiming it to be, there are intermediate forms. Try looking at the Allosaurs for a start!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosaurus


Stop just copying ands pasting from Creationist sites!!! They have no credibility!!!!

The above reason may be how an evolutionists sees it through his own spectacles, but a biblical creationists sees Noah's flood which happened about 4,500 years ago.

LMAO!!! Where is the flood signature for this universal deluge?
Pssst. There isn't one. Noah's story is a copy of an older Babylonian myth called the "Epic of Gilgamesh". It has it all in there - animals in two by twos, arks, rainbows, doves, mountains, sacrifices on landing, the lot.
And there actually is a signature for a localised flooding in the Euphrates valley when Gilgamesh was supposed to have taken place.

Noah's flood never happened. The Bible was compiled when the Hebrews were in exile in Babylon. They merely took the older myth, gave it a moral twist and took it for themselves.

Yet another ridiculous quote from that creationist website:

The Geologic column does not exist in nature. There is not one location on earth where you can take a spot and shovel, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the "perfect evolutionary order"

The Geologic column does exist in nature but it's true that there is no perfect Geologic Column.
Why? The clue is in nature itself!!! It's not a vaccum. Not a sterile environment.
The very nature of nature is that it's always moulding the Earth!!! Wind erosion, water erosion, tectonic plate movement, etc. Nature itself dictates that no perfect Geologic Column can exist!!!

OLAADEGBU:

No, I don't. The Geologic column does not exist in nature. There is not one location on earth where you can take a spot and shovel, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the "perfect evolutionary order" which the evolutionists claim to be in. The so called column only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who chose to believe it. The Geologic Time Column is nothing more than evolutionary speculation and arbitrary opinion. No where in the world is it to be found!

Why are you so evasive? I asked a question about the age of the pre-cambrian and the types of animals that predominated in this period. You simply avoided the question and started talking about geologic column. What sort of behaviour is this?


Answer the question I asked above first, then you can consider this one below;


Supposing you go to your backyard and started digging a hole about 20 metres deep. How many different types of soils are you likely to encounter?

If the hole where 1000 metres deep, how many different types of soil are you likely to encounter.


Now supposing 1 year after you dug the hole, there was a massive earthquake (send by your god in which 100000 people died) which caused substance earth movement causing one section of your backyard to drop by 10 metres. Do you think it might still be possible to arrive at the original configuration of the soil before the earthquake?

@ huxley,

Ardent evolutionists such as:

Dr. Norman who wrote in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, Dr. David Norman, 1985, p. 186.  said: “The question of the origin of dinosaurs is one that has puzzled paleontologists for many years.”

Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), said: “The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column.  It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”

Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century),

“Given the fact of Evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants.  But this is not what the palaeontologist finds.  Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”

Since you don't want the answers that biblical creationists Ken Ham and Dr. Hovind gave I suggest you find your answers from a former ardent evolutionist who had been teaching evolution for 27 years before he had a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, who changed his worldview completely to the Biblical creationist worldview.  Find the answers to most if not all of your questions in a article in his website below:

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

There you go again, telling lies and using crap sources.

Ardent evolutionists such as:
Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), said: “The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”

Ariel Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute at the Seventh-day Adventist Loma Linda University, and served as editor of the creationist journal Origins for 23 years. Ardent evolutionist my butt.

The quotes by Norman and Meyr are also very deceptive. Why don't you post the sentences they wrote following those where they explain why?

@Bastage,

Below are quotes from famous Evolutionists.  The books they wrote and the words they said on the

Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny

"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)

"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)

"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

Famous Evolutionists Quotes on:

Stasis and Sudden Appearance

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. , The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. , If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)

"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs, "  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)

"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)

"All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  , The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)

"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

Their worries about the missing link or

Large Gaps

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning,  A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. , Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record, The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)

"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)

"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology, "  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion, it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  , Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

Again. Very, very misleading.

I'm not even going to bother checking to see if they're all evolutionists as you claim when clearly you've already lied at least once.

Some of those authors are arguing against creationism. When a person gives a theory, they present the opposing view first and then go onto their theory. All you've done is copy and paste from a website that gives the author presenting the opposing view and then totally ignores what his following theory is.
It's completely and utterly taken out of context.

Here's an example of taking something out of context, just as you have done:

"We, no doubt have to recognize with admiration this incredible strength of the Jews' preservation of their race".

Sounds like someone praising the Jewish people doesn't it? But it's completely taken out of context. Do you know why?
Because those words were spoken by Hitler.

You're just posting quote after quote taken out of context from creationist websites. You can't even put forward a good argument in your own words yourself. You have to use someone else's flawed argument.

@Bastage, are you still there?  Check these ones out on their quotes on the theory of evolution in general especially when they are not in denial as some of you.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)  

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)

"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution], I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation, can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)

"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated, We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)

", we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)

"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)

"None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)

I have given you their quotes, their references and the fact that they are not only evolutionists but famous ones at that.  Will you still be in denial and bury your head like an ostrich and hope that these shocking realities of the myth that you have built up as science would go away? Anyone with an objective and sincere mind will be able to see the truth and facts as presented here but  I have an idea as to why these evolutionists are still sticking with these ideologies that has no foundation and I will share them in my next post.

Obviously, you ignored my previous post.

Go ahead. Post your crap.
When you're ready to debate properly, come back and try.

Bastage:

Obviously, you ignored my previous post.

Go ahead. Post your crap.
When you're ready to debate properly, come back and try.

How do you think I will be able to have a proper dialogue with you since you are still in denial and would not want to be confused with the facts because your mind is already made up, and would rather resort to personal attacks and equivocation to pump yourself up.

My main concern is for those lovely sincere people who have been misguided by these sycophants who use half truths and lies to propagate their hate against the Uncreated Creator.  Those who are sincere but sincerely wrong will objectively look at the facts and patiently come to a logical conclusion.

Below is a conversation between a biblical creationist and an evolutionist, follow their conversation and you will discover the reason why many sincere evolutionist put up a facade and are unable to declare the truth publicly because of what it will cost them.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G" (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joined the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room.  It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there! 

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research says:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing.  And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute .

Other reasons are:

1.  They don't have all the facts
2.  They don't want to be ridiculed by their peers
3.  They don't want to acknowledge or be accountable to God
4. Pride

Below is the videolink of a man who was an ardent evolutionist for twenty-seven years, but was a sincere and earnest seeker of the truth.  Watch and listen to him speak on how he eventually found the true and living God.

http://www.creationworldview.org/sample.asp

Read about the personal testimony of Dr. Gary Parker, who as an evolutionist later became an theist- evolutionist before finally seeing the light as he became a biblical creationist believer.  God can still change those who are sincerely and diligently seeking for the truth.

http://www.icr.org/article/95/313/

How do you think I will be able to have a proper dialogue with you since you are still in denial and would not want to be confused with the facts because your mind is already made up, and would rather resort to personal attacks and equivocation to pump yourself up.

A proper dialogue? Since when have you tried to engage anyone in a proper dialogue in this thread? All you've done is post very questionable quotations from creationist websites.
What's your point? Anyone can visit those websites for themselves. Why just keep posting the same old crap over and over again without any of your own input to back them up?

Take a look at the quote about Caylor and "J". Are we honestly meant to take that seriously? An un-named "scientist" on a creationist website promoting creationism. Do you really call that evidence?

Do you call posting the words of pro-creationists who claim to once have been "scientists" as evidence?

you are still in denial and would not want to be confused with the facts because your mind is already made up

I'm in denial and my mind is made up? Yet you haven't answered a single question posed to you. You just go on posting creationist quotations time and time again. Do you understand how dumb that makes you look? I'm confused by the facts? Where have you given a single "fact"? You claim that Creationism is the way to go, yet you haven't supplied one single bit of evidence that it's the right way. All you've done is try to pick holes in Evolution theory (very badly I might add). If you're going to prove Creationism, you've got to back it up. You plain and simple haven't. Your ignorance regarding "facts" is utterly breath-taking. And then when caught in a total lie as you were with the "ardent evolutionist" claim, you just totally ignore it. Astounding!!

Honestly, do you know how to debate? Pick an issue and then discuss it? Can you do that?
I think not. You seem far too stupid and don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of how one goes about logically promoting a theory. Look through this thread that has now stretched to five pages. Look at how many posts you've made. Then look at how many of the words in those posts are your own. Probably less than 1%. Now I know most creationists are very shallow and unimaginitive but you really are a prime example of that ilk.

So stop complaining about other people "insulting" you. You've posted nothing that negates your being deserving of those insults.

For an object lesson on how damaging religion can be, you don't have to look further than OLAADEGBU. This man has lost all his reasoning faculty. To try to engage him in a discussion is worse than engage a zombie. He will scuttle away to some website and cut&paste without even reading the stuff.

Bastage, you have got him spot on. Little or nothing of what he posts are his own formulated arguments. How would you debate with someone how cannot formulate a single coherent argument.

Sad, really sad. And to think that I apologise to him for calling him names. Well those names were entirely justified.

The title of this thread is "Questions for Evolutionists and Atheists", and I proceeded to table questions that I expected you to answer but what do you get when they have not even attempted to answer these questions are loads of equivocations, Ad Hominems, ridicule, extrapolations, bluffings, bandwagon mentality, loaded words, associations, shifting the burden of proof, best in field falacies, circumstancial evidences etc., all to divert the attention from their own shortcomings.  This is why I have to use their own evolutionists' heroes' quotations in answering some of their questions giving them references for them to check up instead they would start to blackmail that I am using other people's words instead of mine.  Again I will refer you to the questions posted, if you cannot answer them simply move on to other things.

If you need to view the questions, see them here: from post #1,60,127,130 etc

Questions For Evolutionists and Atheists: 
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-154685.128.html#bot

A creationist's challenge to evolutionists:  Scroll down to #124
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-154685.0.html#bot

If you feel you have an answer to some of these questions you are free to participate and share your knowledge with us.  I on the other hand will give what I understand to be the creation model which is based on the Bible, because I believe that both models are based on faith, to me the Bible is based on solid evidence that can stand the test of science and history while it is up to you to prove or demonstrate that evolution is not just based on mythology or blind faith.  The ball is in your court.  Don't let the rascals put you off with their diversionary tactics.

Again I will refer you to the questions posted, if you cannot answer them simply move on to other things.

If you need to view the questions, see them here: from post #1,60,127,130 etc

Please get real. The questions posted? You opened this thread by copying and pasting from creationist websites and posing hundreds of questions. Most posters are happy with a couple of questions, but you opened up with near enough a whole page of quotations!!!  And look at the numbers you've given there - there's hundreds more!!! Do you honestly expect someone to answer every single question? I know I sure as s4it wouldn't. Half of them don't even warrant a reply because they're so stupid.

How about asking one or two so that people can answer? Pick some that make sense. Then you can reply. That's how debating works. And once that's done, you move onto another one or two - without making a dozen posts in a row of copy and paste in between so that you don't drown everyone in an avalanche of crap.

This is why I have to use their own evolutionists' heroes' quotations in answering some of their questions

Another reason why you should avoid just copying and pasting en masse: I've already shown you that some of those people are not evolutionists, they are creationists. I've also shown you how their work is taken out of context. Therefore your tactics are at best misleading, at worst lies.

So either you debate properly or stop whining and accept the ridicule you're so far deserving of.

These "Darwinian bulldogs" are not interested in answering any questions if they were really sincere they would try to answer the ones they can and wait for a response but they would rather try to use diversionary tactics to gain attention.

I started this thread by throwing out a challenge to those who call themselves evolutionists and atheists regarding their theory of evolution, for them to convince us that it is based on a solid foundation and not on shaky grounds.  Even though they accused me of ignorance of the evolution theory but the best they can do is to answer what they feel they can.  Only wirinet attempted to answer the first question which was "Where did the space come from?" and his response was: "The answer is nobody really knows, and the question is really unknowable" and he went on to explain the big bang that came out of a "singularity"(post #13).  He further admitted (in post #45) that they don't know how life started.

I had to use the findings of the scientists to buttress my point because I had been accused of not being  scientistifically qualified.  They again complained that the quotation and links of the scientist I used are not credible because they are creationists again I obliged them by quoting from evolutionists, giving their references for them to validate. At this juncture, it was only wirinet that engaged me in a progressive debate with whom I was able to engage in a lengthy discussion.  Hell broke loose when I began to uncover the racism, chauvinism and all the evil things Darwin and his bulldogs were up to, that was when the likes of huxley (who has produced the highest copy and paste on NL) and Bastage (whose only interest was to divert attention from the obvious) began to get disturbed and started to ask questions, bluff, ridicule, accuse (as the accuser of the brethren ), equivocate, associating what they want to critizice with something people dislike, name-calling, shifting the burden of proof, pretending to know more and making false claims such as saying that the fossils record is full of transitional fossils or saying Dinosaurs evolved into birds, they used visualization to mislead or as a substitute for evidence, listing all the points in their favour while ignoring the serious points against it, they appealed to overlook discrepancies in their theory and used fuzzy words, half truths and half lies.

Since our NL resident evolutionists did not, would not or could not satisfactorily answer some of these questions I then decided to give biblical answers backed up by scientists well qualified in their fields, as well as the testimonies of evolutionists who had a change of heart since they encountered our Lord Jesus Christ and subsequently became biblical creationists using the Bible as the final authority.  By God's grace I will continue to give biblical answers to the questions that the evolutionists are unable to answer.

Wow!! At last you actually wrote something all by yourself.
A pity it only amounted to a load of hot air.

Now. Would you like to ask those couple of questions as I suggested in my last post? You're complaining that nobody's answered them, so how about it?

@Bastage,

The questions are there for everyone to see, you may not see them if you've still got those evolution goggles on, my suggestion to you will be for you to remove them, then shine your eyes and smell the coffee, unless you insist in burying your head in the quicksand.

As I've already pointed out, you've simply copy and pasted hundreds and hundreds of questions.

If you think that I'm answering every single one of them, you are sadly deluded. That's not the way it works in this forum or on any other.

If you decide to debate properly and post a couple, then I'm sure myself and others will try to answer them for you. Then, if you're satisfied, you can move onto others. Posting hundreds of questions and insisting that they all be answered is no way to go about conducting a debate.

There is no burying of heads in quicksand on this side. I've offered to debate. Are you up to it?

Giving the benefit of the doubt that you really want to participate in answering these questions I will start with the origin of the universe.

The question I am asking is:

1.  Where did the matter come from that created the fireball? In order to have a big bang, we need something (matter/energy) to go bang. 

2.  Where and how did this original matter/energy originate?

And for your excuses that you've given upfront on copying and pasting, I'll give you this challenge to check how many posts that huxley(he also goes by therational and other names) has copied and pasted since he began posting on NL and then come back and give us the feedback.

I don't care how much Huxley copies and pastes. I'm debating you not him.

1.  Where did the matter come from that created the fireball? In order to have a big bang, we need something (matter/energy) to go bang.

2.  Where and how did this original matter/energy originate?

There are many theories and much speculation. But I will give you my own theory.
The matter for the Big Bang came from a previous Universe. I believe that the Universe inflates and deflates, rather like a living, breathing organism. Continually expanding and then decreasing until it creates another Big Bang. We have evidence of it expanding and so I believe it is entirely logical to speculate that it will decrease at some time. Then there will be a Big Crunch and then another Big Bang. Therefore it wasn't original matter in the sense that your question means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

But that posits another question to 2. Was there a Universe right at the beginning that took that first exhalation and then inhalation? Original matter? That question is open to belief. It's possible that there never was a first Universe, never original matter, never a first breath - just infinite breathing or it's possible that God created that first Universe. That is not a Creationist theory. Merely a statement that God may have created the Universe back in time immemorial or that he created the infinite. It is not a Creationist advocation of the Earth and everyone on it being created 4000 years ago.

For your own purpose in debating, remember that I am not an atheist. I do believe in God. I am simply not a Creationist.

edit. The Big Bounce Theory probably describes my theory better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

OLAADEGBU:

And for your excuses that you've given upfront on copying and pasting, I'll give you this challenge to check how many posts that huxley(he also goes by therational and other names) has copied and pasted since he began posting on NL and then come back and give us the feedback.

There is a big difference between the way I use cut&paste and the way you do. I paste article that I find interesting and want to share with members of NL. Rare do I use this as my line of debates and I don't use other people's articles as a means to fob off or avoid answering questions put to me.

Go take a look, all my threads soliciting debates are usually started off with my own words.