Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution, where's the Link? (Saturbray)
www.brayincandy.com ^ | 1/26/12 | bray

Posted on 01/26/2013 8:46:52 AM PST by bray

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your Freedom, do so. 1 Cor 7:21

Why do we assume scientists are always right? It seems we are being scammed by some of the shiftiest salesmen on the planet beginning with their most questionable foundation of evolution. While they are intimidating and ridiculing Christians for their belief in an all powerful God, they are promoting a theory that has not made any progress in over a hundred and fifty years. This failure happened in spite of every scientist on the planet attempting to discover the holy grail of science, that elusive missing link between monkey and man.

Darwin invented this theory by the logical observations that every animal and plant seems to have a similarity and connection making an obvious chain from one animal to the next. His theory as everyone knows has life beginning randomly in a primordial soup forming the first life forms billions of years ago. Never mind this huge hole in the theory of how life could be formed in a soup that was previously sterilized at over a thousand degrees, you just accept it without explanation or even the slightest bit of logic. This crater is so big that the Darwinists eliminated it from their discussion and saying how it occurred is no longer part of evolution which is like saying starting the car has nothing to do with your destination?

In 1859 Darwin questioned his own theory in his book Origin of Species when he wrote, ” ...as this process of extermination [survival of the fittest] 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? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

If he asked that question in today’s scientific community he would be called a denier and would be tossed out of the scientific community. After a century and a half it should be time for the scientific community to answer that basic question. Shouldn’t these archeologists be swimming in transitory species’ fossils yet they have not found any which can be confirmed.

Now if you simply ask the question of where life began you will soon be vilified and called a Bible thumping Neanderthal or as they would call it, the missing link. From the magic of life appearing forward evolutionists are very comfortable, since life forms have a continuity they can observe and theorize. First there were bacteria which formed into amoeba’s which evolved into plankton and then fish since they all occur in the ocean and live as well as adapt similarly to each other. There are no explanations of how or why they simply changed from single cells into fish other than you simply need to have faith in random defects turning into superior species rather than inferior or that it can be repeated, you just accept it.

The next step of evolution is moving from the ocean and onto the land which of course was the evolution of whales and whale type creatures which eventually became reptiles. The reptiles ruled the earth as dinosaurs for millions and millions of years until a random ice age happened which wiped them out instantly. This is where it becomes dicey since they are not sure the mammals developed while the dinosaurs were eating them and vice versa since the evolution from reptile to mammal is such a giant leap. Once again we have no transitory species or fossils of those species which makes you have to wonder why no examples of these defective reptiles becoming pure land creatures. You simply take another scientific leap of faith.

The other problem the Darwinists have is where is the missing link? During the early 20th century there was something the scientists called the evolutionary ladder that led to modern man. It began with Nebraska man (fraud) to Peking man (fraud) to Piltdown man (fraud) to Neanderthal (fraud) and then man began walking fully upright. Once that happened then they used their scientific brilliance and made the Black man into one of the lower man evolutions followed by Asian through Slavic, Gypsy, Jew, and then Aryan being the highest form of man which they then attempted to make a super race leading to gas chambers and ovens to purify the race. Good thing science has given up on that evolutionary idea.

Once again science was wrong as it moved away from simple curiosity and investigation and into an agenda driven science and has not moved from there since that time. For any scientist there would have to be millions and millions of transitory species moving from Ape to man, yet not one scientist has found a credible fossil. The evolutions from the ape to man has to have as many separate species as from reptile to ape, yet nothing. Every scientist knows if she finds this fossil she will have instant immortality as they have finally proved God a fake…er…evolution is true. Even the most basic logic has to tell you if they know where modern man first began in Iran on the Euphrates in the simplest of digging areas there should be a sea of those transitional ape/man species and yet they have not found any. Why? There is only one logical answer and that is that man did not evolve from the Great Apes but came from somewhere else. If there were millions of evolutions between Ape and Man which would take more evolutions than moving from amoeba to ape, it is statistically impossible for scientists to not find at least one! The odds have to be billions and billions to one not to find one of these missing links, yet that is exactly what has happened in over a hundred and fifty years of searching.

It really makes you wonder when science began losing its curiosity of the unknown. There had to be a time when science was as eager to disprove their theories as they are now to perpetuate their frauds? If they have not come up with a credible missing link by this time then what stops them from discarding the entire theory. Sure it is easy to say an amoeba looks like a fish and a lizard walking out of the water looks like a mammal. Then of course the Disney movie continues as a dog looks like a horse and when they go up on two legs the can go from monkey to ape to man, but did that actually happen? There is no proof that is what happened which is the giant hole in the theory they have to fill with consensus, intimidation and purging rather than evidence.

The giant question that is not allowed to be asked is, was life formed by a chain of events making them look similar and have continuity or did that similarity occur at creation? Did science actually invent a theory of our creation or are they simply observing the miraculous continuity of a perfect creator? These are questions science does not want to ask and are beginning to fear the answers. Why won’t today’s scientists ask the same logical question Darwin asked, "why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?"

Pray for America


TOPICS: Culture/Society; FReeper Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; evolution; fake; fraud; notanewstopic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

1 posted on 01/26/2013 8:46:59 AM PST by bray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bray
Why do we assume scientists are always right?

Because it's SCIENCE!

2 posted on 01/26/2013 8:48:01 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray
Why aren't there lots of transitional fossils all over the place?

Well, actually, there are.

Wikipedia List of Transitional Fossils

Aside from that one, erroneous, contention, not sure there's any substance to this post. But thanks for playing!

3 posted on 01/26/2013 8:52:45 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray
I have read that Darwin's departure from his belief in God (which he had) and Creation, to his Evolutionary model is in part due to his observations of cats and wasps.

Cats often play with their prey after capture, seemingly torturing them to death. Wasps lay their eggs inside of caterpillars. The eggs hatch and eat the caterpillar alive as they develop and hatch, slowly killing the caterpillar.

From this, Darwin determined there is no God, because no God would make creatures whose design would intentionally cause other creatures to suffer unneedlessly.

4 posted on 01/26/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
Another retard speaks. Evolution is about speciation. The creation of life comes under the science of abiogenesis.
5 posted on 01/26/2013 8:57:54 AM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I hate to nit pick but I think it’s reasonable to assert that every fossil ever found and every living thing on this planet is transitional to some degree or other.


6 posted on 01/26/2013 9:01:31 AM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
You do realize...That quoting wikipedia is like quoting a coloring book? Anybody can edit it. I could roll over to wikipedia right now, erase that page, and render your post wholly without substance.

Thank YOU for playing.

7 posted on 01/26/2013 9:02:35 AM PST by Wyrd bi ful ard (Gone Galt, 11/07/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bray
There is only one logical answer and that is that man did not evolve from the Great Apes but came from somewhere else

8 posted on 01/26/2013 9:04:32 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (I think, therefore I am what I yam, and that's all I yam - "Popeye" Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd; Alter Kaker
You do realize...That quoting wikipedia is like quoting a coloring book? Anybody can edit it. I could roll over to wikipedia right now, erase that page, and render your post wholly without substance. Thank YOU for playing.

This game had a chance a decade ago, not any more. The reason? Reference footnotes. Wiki articles are filled with them, and claims are usually linked to reputed science publications.

So... thank you for playing!

9 posted on 01/26/2013 9:08:52 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
unneedlessly. ?
10 posted on 01/26/2013 9:18:16 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; abclily; AbeKrieger; AFPhys; airborne; Alan H; Allegra; Always Right; ...

enough braying


11 posted on 01/26/2013 9:21:04 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray
You understand that as a writer, you subject yourself to criticism - allow me to criticize. The first couple of paragraphs are so full of falsehoods, logical fallacies, and inane misunderstandings that I couldn't get any further. Here are two pieces of advice - don't try to write about things of which you obviously know nothing, and find a new hobby, preferably one you won't feel compelled to share with other. Thanks.
12 posted on 01/26/2013 9:21:31 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; abclily; AbeKrieger; AFPhys; airborne; Alan H; Allegra; Always Right; ...

enough braying


13 posted on 01/26/2013 9:21:57 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray

Have you ever thought to consider that by insisting on this “Earth is flat” attitude you are driving people FROM God? That you are sending the signal that only those with invincible ignorance are righteous? Mankind’s view of God has changed many times but He is there for the long haul and can survive a change in the creation story. Insisting on a story made long ago by people ignorant of just how vast and glorious God’s universe is only succeeds in scaring away reasonable people from God.


14 posted on 01/26/2013 9:23:07 AM PST by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Not sure if wikopedia is of any value? Same old thug tactic of dehumanizing your questioner and never answering the question. An early octopus is hardly a new species.

How about a discussion rather than a food fight to defend your dying faith.

Pray for America


15 posted on 01/26/2013 9:26:37 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Pot/Kettle/Black

Try again without the thug tactic.

Pray for America


16 posted on 01/26/2013 9:28:18 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Ah the old, Christians should be seen but not heard. Have you ever considered the possibility that evolution has holes in it you can drive a train through? Have you ever considered Darwin may have been wrong? No of course not.

Pray for America


17 posted on 01/26/2013 9:30:24 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

I can tell you this, bud, NO ONE RESPECTS WIKIPEDIA, nor does it deserve any respect. It is merely a place to start, sort of like a hornbook.


18 posted on 01/26/2013 9:34:38 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Guess Wikopedia may want to take the Conodate out of their list: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_himalayan_fossils_hoax

This should be fun exposing the evolutionary frauds through the decades. But then again, you must be a evolutionary believing scientist to have an opinion on evolution. Otherwise you are just a Neanderthal and invalidated.


19 posted on 01/26/2013 9:36:17 AM PST by bray (Welcome to Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Interestingly from Socrates until a few hundred years ago, spontaneous generation was an accepted “scientific” theory of life. Then, through careful experimentation, spontaneous generation was discredited and no one believes in it today. Abiogenesis, though, is another matter. That’s spontaneous generation billions of years ago in an atmosphere and under conditions totally inimical to life.


20 posted on 01/26/2013 9:45:14 AM PST by Hootowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson