Re: The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of transitional fossils.


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126290248.840761.126560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The evasions by Darwinists is appalling and confirms the facts layed
> out in the OP.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60d52bcce1d020ef?hl=en&;
>
> Bobby Bryant intentionally acts like the total lack of transitionals is
> no big deal.

Even if there were a total lack of transitional fossils, it would be no big
deal. However there is not a lack of transitional fossils.

> IOW, not having the very evidence that the theory predicts
> does not harm the truthfulness of its claims.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, the original
assertion, that there is a lack of transitional forms, is false.

> Denying the theory
> predicts transitionals AFTER it is discovered none exist tells you
> everything about Darwinists you need to know: liars.

The theory of evolution does not predict that any fossils will be found.
That the fossil record does show transitional forms is just more evidence
the theory is correct.

>
> In response Bryant parrots what all Darwinists rely on when someone
> uses their brain and common sense:

Ray apparently is not well aquainted with either the brain, or common sense.

> asserts that anyone who points out
> the obvious (no transitionals) is somehow ignorant.

They are ignorant, if they are not aware of the transitionals that do exist.

> IOW, the response
> to falsification is not challenged except to deny and calmly assert you
> are stupid.

Especally when the "falsification" is itself false. There are plenty of
transitional forms, so claiming there are not is not rational.

> This is an act by Darwinists that they employ as their
> only way to combat anyone who dares to complain about the lack of
> transitional evidence.

Anyone who "dares" complain about the "lack of transitional evidence",
should be aware that transitional fossils are not lacking. Look at the
fossil record, and you will see the claims made by those who claim lack of
transitionals is false.

> The quality and brazeness of the act is equal to
> their desire to not recognize the lack transitionals because this
> proves the existence of the God of Genesis/sudden creation literally
> true. IOW, pure hate of God = what everyone knows atheists are about.

A lack of transitional fossils, even if such a thing were true, would not
'prove' the existance of God, or the accuracy of Genesis. Atheists do not
hate God, as they don't believe such a thing exists.

>
> What is obvious is that Bryant and all Darwinists on this board
> routinely use this tactic of acting like you are crazy in response to
> the most obvious damning evidence against ToE.

"Crazy is as crazy does". When you deny the existance of the many
transitional fossils that exist in the record, it's not a sign of a balanced
mind.

>
> IOW, it is the only way to preserve their atheist creation myth: brand
> all messengers with evidence against to be stupid or crazy.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if there
were no transitional forms, (something that is simply not true), there would
still be plenty of other physical evidnence of evolution. Denying the
existance of the many transitional fossils is not evidence of anything.

> This is the
> exact tactic of Satan and the Pharisees as used against Jesus in the
> N.T

Perhaps Ray could point out chapter and verse of where Satan and the
Pharasees ( a great name for a rock band, by the way) ever used lack of
transitional fossils against Jesus. Maybe that verse is somewhere near
his papers that support his claim about JPL scientists proposing the "vapor
canopy".


>. = proof of the origin of the tactic and who controls Darwinian
> tactics.

Bald assertions and insults are not "proof" of anything, Ray.

> This tactic proves the falsification of pointing out no
> transitionals exist is what it obviously is or they would honestly
> refute.

However many transitional fossils do exist. A lack of transitional forms
is not a refutation of evolution in of itself, and even if it were, there
are plenty of transitional forms represented in the fossil record. Your
claim fails twice.

>
> In 1967 atheist Louis Leakey admitted "hundreds of missing links were
> missing."

First of all, why do you assume Louis Leakey was atheist. Second, you are
misquoting Leakey. What he was sayinig was that there wasn't one single
"missing link" but there were many "links" in the human family. Some of
which had been found by Leakey's time, and many more have been found since
1967.
>
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
>
> "But what has the fossil evidence revealed? Certainly not proof for the
> evolutionary concept. To the contrary, the fossil testimony suggests
> that the major forms of biological life stand abruptly apart. The
> thousands of intermediate links, bridging these huge gaps, are
> conspicuously absent.

False claim from an apologist site. So what?
>
> This has baffled evolutionary apologists. Charles Darwin confessed that
> this absence of transitional fossils is "the most serious objection
> which can be urged against the theory" (p. 313). Stephen J. Gould, a
> militant humanist, acknowledged:
>
>
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
> little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
> groups are characteristically abrupt" (p. 24).

Darwin and Gould quote mined. So what?

>
> When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
> lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
> February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
> responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
> links missing."

Again, see what Leakey was saying. There is not a single "missing link".
The fossil history of humans is much more complex than that. Since the
time Leakey was quoted, there have been many more hominid fossils
discovered.

>
> The question is - where did they go?

They didnt "go" anywhere. They are still in the rocks, waiting to be
discovered, or have been discovered. Some may have been lost, or never were
represented in the fossil record.

>
> The answer usually given is this - evolution simply operates too
> slowly for the links to be apparent.

No, that's not correct. It's the imperfect nature of the fossil record
that's why we don't have a fossil of every creature that lived. We only
have a very small percentage of all living things have fossilized, and only
a tiny percentage of all living things were preserved as fossils.


Professor Robert Jastrow claims:
> "It is in the nature of biological evolution that it always proceeds
> slowly" (p. 86).

Another mined quote. So?

>
> Of course, this makes no logical sense at all. If evolution has
> occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal
> virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into
> another - much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.
> The links are just not there!" END LINK QUOTE

Another false claim from an apologist site. Fossilization is simply too
erratic a process to expect a perfect record.

>
>
> In 1997 atheist Richard Milton says in his book "Shattering the Myths
> of Darwinism" at least 10 different times there is not ONE transitional
> fossil in existence.

Then Milton was wrong.

>
>>>From Darwins day to Leakey in 1967 to atheist Milton in 1997 = no
> transitional evidence. Yet Bryant yawns = the Fundies of science
> evading falsification because Genesis is not an option.

Leakey didn't say there were no transitional forms, and Milton's claim, (if
you are quoting him correctly) was wrong.

>
> Naturalism is atheist religion:

No, naturalism is a necessary condition for scientific investigation. It
does not claim that God, or gods do not exist.


> only atheists assert God is beyond the
> realm of scientific investigation.

Quite false. All scientists worthy of the name accept the fact that science
cannot study the supernatural. This includes literally thousands of
devoutly religous scientists. This assertion by Ray is false on it's face.

> Then every fact they produce is
> offered against the existence of God = liars.

Physical evidence cannot prove, or disprove God. Ray is speaking falsely
when he makes the above claim.


> IOW, we are neutral about
> the Divine but then at the same time our evidence proves He does not
> exist. Their evidence does not exist but is philosophy packaged as
> such.

Science doesn't claim that God does not exist. Science cannot "prove" that
God does not exist, and does not try.

>
> If there was ONE scrap of evidence they would refrain from ad hom
> "refutations."

What is Ray's excuse for employing ad hominem, then?

Ok, Ray, here's your chance to shine... Why is Ambulocetus natans not a
transitional fossil?


>
> Bryant/Darwinists assert brazen lies in response: "we never predicted
> tranistional fossils."

Evolution does not predict that transitional fossils must be found . That
we do have transitional forms is just more evidence on the side of
evolution.

>
> What Bryant and all Darwinists prove by these responses is the part of
> the Bible in Romans 1 that says those who have no God awareness
> (atheists/Darwinists) and who reject the way of faith to account to God
> (2nd attribute) suppress evidence of intelligent design.

Actually, Ray, Creationists are those who have no awareness of God, and
those who reject the way of faith. They are the modern Pharasees, who
prize the word above the spirit. The "evidence" of intelligent design
could not be supressed, if there were any.


> The verses go
> on to say the reason they do this is because God has stricken their
> ability to see Him in creation as a penalty for flipping Him off and
> inventing evil lies that He had nothing to do with what He created.

Ray has been shown how this interpetation is false. He keeps repeating this
falsehood, despite the fact he must by now be aware of how false it is.
One can only wonder why Ray keeps returning to this, like a dog returning to
it's own vomit.

>
> IOW, the evil responses of Bryant prove the Biblical penalty - either
> way the Bible is proven true.

The Bible does not say there is a penalty for people using their intellect.
Ray has been shown why this claim is false, and has not been able to dispute
that.

>
> ROMANS 1:25
>
> "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
> creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Which sounds a great deal like Creationists. They serve the Bible more
than the one who wrote it.

>
>>>From the same link:

Same link as what?


>
> "And so, a number of years ago, the "systemic mutation," or
> "hopeful monster" theory was born. In 1940, Professor Richard B.
> Goldschmidt of the University of California postulated the possibility
> of quick, gigantic mutations, which, he claimed, could produce
> "hopeful monsters." Goldschmidt speculated, for example, that
> "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg" (p. 395)."

Goldschmit's ideas have not been current for over 60 years. What's the
point?

>
> Look at what Darwinists will do to evade the Creator at all costs:
> propose hocus pocus

Actually, it's the Creationists who propose "hocus pocus". Even
Goldschmit's ideas proposed natural mechanisms for his claims.


- I thought they were rational scientists, honest,
> open to evidence for God ?

What is the evidence for God?

>
> Proposals like Goldschmidt's prove that Darwinists will invent fraud
> rather than embrace the obvious: Genesis sudden creation is true and
> what all the evidence suopports.

Goldschmidt's ideas may have been a bit "out there" but were not fraud.
There is no evidence of sudden creation, and much evidence that Genesis is
not scientifically accurate. The evidence does not support the Genesis
creation stories.

>
> Yes, Romans is true:

But Ray's interpetations are blantantly false.

> The belief that created things originate from
> other created things (macroevolution) is a penalty from God for denying
> Him Creator credit.

There is no such penalty. Ray once again repeats a falsehood, rather than
face the facts.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages