Posted on 11/04/2006 1:44:51 PM PST by RunningWolf
Note; Had to remove words to get under 300. See article.
People are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species.
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Neither position can be scientifically proved.
Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.
Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker.
Natural laws are adequate to explain the order in life, but undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.
The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.pravda.ru ...
No it's not. There is no issue.
There is money and political exploitation, but the "issues" around them are nonsense.
This reminds of a question I posed to an evolutioner years ago who adamantly defended that we "evolved" from apes.
Rather than argue, I asked her: "If we evolved from apes, then how come we still have apes."
I can still see her mouth agape - she was utterly confused and stuck dumb - er dumber
Further, why aren't there any oceanic species building cities and cars?
Occupying faculty offices at a university does not guarantee knowledge of truth.
Listened to any poly sci profs lately?
Sorry..Evolution happens.
Them's fully developed lizards, driver.
monotremes.
But not Macroevolution.
It may be that evolutionary changes happen quickly. Kind of like a glass of water that you fill to the brim and even over the brim before it spills. There may not be many half evolved fossil remains, just as there is virtually no time at all between the last drop in the glass and the overspill.
This is not much of an arguement.
To evolove means to change. All species are in between evoloving. The problem is evoloving into what. Nobody knows.
A few examples: dolphins and Whales, air breathing mammals living in water. Penguines, a bird evolved into an aquatic species. A saber toothed tiger, evoloving into a modern day tiger. Even modern man, gaining height, gaining disease resistance, and gaining years. What will man born in space and raised there look like after a few generations?
And on the creation side, who can say that the Supreme Being (God) is done changing species. Perhaps he is tweaking his creations, even as we speak.
.... Bob
I can prove vertical evolution! I can show that a venomous snake evolved into Ted Kennedy!
No, it is only a duplicative process, since it is controlled by a template (DNA), just as a CAM milling machine making a complex part.
My post was a humorous attempt to answer the question in the post title.
And as a matter of fact, I do happen to remember some of my poli sci and econ professors from the Eighties. I know what you mean.
The Macroevolution gestapo has arrived. (There are some Macroevolutionist freepers who, although they vehemently disagree with Creationism, are generally mature in their responses. Too often though, another, larger group of Macroevolutionists simply rudely insult that which they do not agree with. The same occurs among Creationists, but to a MUCH lesser extent).
Running the Democrat party?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.