Fossils Dr. Michael Denton said that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils.
The majority of fossils found are creatures that look just the same as today's animals.
Evolutionists aren't particularly excited about these, because it doesn't help support their views.
They are finding so many of what they call "living fossils".
Even the famed supposedly 65-million-year-old coelacanth, which they believed lived at the same time as dinosaurs (and it did! just wasn't millions of years ago) was found ALIVE and well in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.
Their response. "Oh, wow, it didn't evolve at all in tens of millions of years!"
The coelacanth was touted as the missing link between fish and land animals. It was supposed to be the ancestor of all land animals, the animal that was coming out of the water. Yet...it's still here...and it's still a fish! Oh dear. What a calamity.
Now scientists have come up with a new story to cover for this blunder that was previously taught as FACT and anyone who questions it is a retard (like Ywfn says, anyone who questions FACTS of evolution is a retard!) Now they have decided, "Oh, this thing is just evolving slower than anything else because it's genes are remarkably stable!"
Yeah, the genes of it and every other living organism on the planet!
Facts are things that can be observed, tested, repeated, demonstrated, measured, or experienced with the 5 senses.
The notion that fish started walking onto land and left their gills behind in the water to get lungs instead is not a part of science. People are welcome to believe these fishy stories all they want, but calling it science is entirely inaccurate.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-sequencing-reveals-that-coelacanths-werent-the-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/ The "420 million year old" elephant shark is even more tragic for the evolutionists. An animal hasn't evolved in 420 millions years. Maybe, it's because the theory is baloney!
There is zero evidence for one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the creature, if not fatal.
Mutations involve a scrambling or deletion of existing information, NEVER, EVER, EVER a GAIN of new information or new instructions on making new organs and body parts that the parent organism did not have.
Evolution, in order to progress, requires the addition of NEW information and new instructions for new parts. This has not been observed and this does not happen in real life. This is not a part of science. This is faith. It is as religious as the belief in God.
Intentional breeding with a specific goal in mind (like to create a dog breed with super short legs or a curly coat) takes mutant animals and reproduces those intentionally until the genetic diversity and normal genes are removed from that population pool. "Pure" breeds or specifically bred types of corn, cattle, chickens, etc. have LESS genetic diversity and information than the parent animals, not more, and are sicker and weaker than the genetically diverse animals.
What you start with? dog
What you end with? dog
Change in kind of animal? no, none
If a virus attacks a specific protein in bacteria, and a mutation causes some bacteria to be produced without this protein, they are protected from that threat by having a mutation that appears to be, momentarily beneficial.
This is a LOSS of information, not a gain. And these bacteria are sicklier and weaker than the normal bacteria in the long run. And they are still bacteria!
Species at start: bacteria
Species at end: bacteria
Change in kind of life form? no, none
And they are still always the same KIND of animal or organism that they were at the beginning.
Back to Fossils Evolutionists admit that there is a complete absence of fossils of transitional creatures.
Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould: “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.”
“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant 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.”
University of Chicago paleontologist David M. Raup: “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”
“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”
University professor, paleontologist, curator of two museums, George Gaylord Simpson: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”
UC San Diego biology professor David S. Woodruff: “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”
University of Hawaii paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Steven M. Stanley: “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
Paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson: “About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
The evidence for one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal is NOT found in "the fossil record".
How do fossils form, anyways?
Is the Google search result true?
Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. People don't see fossils forming very often in nature today, yet there are millions of fossils all over the world.
When an animal dies in nature, usually the flesh and often even the bones are devoured and anything left decays.
It takes special conditions for fossils to form...like a worldwide flood catastrophe. There is evidence that the entire world was underwater, just like Genesis says in the Bible. There are marine fossils found on Mount Everest. There are marine fossils found all over the world.
I believe the fossils formed in the flood catastophe, when there would have been enormous amounts of mud and water travelling rapidly to bury these creatures alive and under pressure and just the right conditions for fossils to form.
It's not a slow process.
A fossil fish seen below died rapidly during the process of giving birth.
Here is a fossilized fish mid-bite.
These things did not die and get buried slowly. These creatures were buried alive and rapidly, as they would be in catastophic flood conditions, as would a vast quantity and assortment of animals.
Soft tissue (blood vessels, blood cells) has been found in dinosaur remains. These things cannot survive from 70 million years ago from when these creatures are believed by some to have existed.
The discoverer, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."
Scientists wrong again.
They have been scrambling to come up with new stories and ways to explain away yet more evidence that contradicts their notion of "science", which is in effect their religion that they must protect at all costs, regardless of what the evidence shows.
Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation week, along with other land animals.
There is plenty of evidence to show that dinosaurs (this word was invented in 1842) existed alongside human beings. Before that, they were often called dragons or other names.
Some of these images and carvings are thousands of years old, but people started digging up dinosaur bones in the last few hundred years.
The evidence indicates that the people making the pictures and carvings and writing the stories of these huge reptiles (dragons or dinosaurs or whatever you'd like to call them) actually SAW these creatures!
There are many historical accounts of battles with dragons (aka dinosaurs).
On Proof You can't compare the "science" of those two things.
In one instance, you can feel the sun's heat, and observe on earth that the sun's heat can harm, blind, or kill people by excessive exposure. These lie within what can be observed.
On the other hand, bones found in the dirt do not talk. Nor do they have dates stamped on them. What people conclude about fossils found in the ground can be a number of things, depending on their worldview lens that they are looking through. "Dating" methods rely on assumptions.
We can observe or study certain things like the half-life of an element, such as the decay of radioactive potassium to the gas argon.
You can measure the rate of decay, but to use it to estimate ages for rocks or fossils, you have to assume the quantities present of each at a certain point in time in the past, which can't be tested.
When samples of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand lava flows (1949, 1954, 1975) were tested at a commercial lab, the "scientific" dates were millions of years. The methods do not work on samples of known age, but are assumed to work on samples of unknown age? This is illogical.
The reality is that all the dates derived by these methods that evolutionists don't like are thrown out, while they keep the ones tha suit their ideas.
The methods have repeatedly proven to be unreliable.
They date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils. "The fossils date the rocks more accurately."
It's all based on faulty assumptions and an incoherent worldview.
So if a rock is dated at an age that is "too old" or "too young" for the fossils found in there, the dates are discarded because the fossil's presence "proves" that it's older or younger.
This isn't science. This is picking and choosing what you like and calling it science, when the dating methods are proven to not work reliably on samples of known age. It's also circular reasoning to date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils.
All the evidence in the world lines up with what the Bible teaches.
God created the heavens and the earth and all living things according to their kinds in 6 days. Man sinned and death came into the now-cursed world. There was a global flood to judge man for wickedness. Most of that water is still here. The earth is covered with mostly water. Many ancient underwater cities have been found, some of which likely are advanced pre-flood civilizations.
Man was created intelligent and I believe far more intelligent than people today. The actual archaeological findings fit the Bible perfectly, with many discoveries of advanced technology in ancient ruins that some believe must be proof aliens visited earth long ago.
People are so brainwashed with the lies of "primitive" ape-like cavemen and evolutionary thinking seen in textbooks and mueums, which have been shown to be lies and frauds, that all contrary evidence is hidden and suppressed.
Giant human fossils were hidden because it didn't fit their worldview.
Evolutionists are so ardent in supporting their worldview that they are willing to fabricate evidence for it and destroy evidence against it, as seen when the Smithsonian destroyed tens of thousands of giant human skeletons that did not fit in with their beliefs that everything is getting bigger and better and stronger over time. What we tend to observe is things getting weaker and sicker and dying.
VIDEO
SMITHSONIAN ADMITS TO DESTRUCTION OF THOUSANDS OF GIANT HUMAN SKELETONS - YouTube http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/ There is TONS of evidence all over the world, not only of giant humans, but giant animals as well. These are HIDDEN and SUPPRESSED because they DO NOT FIT evolutionist worldview!
The evolutionist worldview is FALSE. The real evidence goes against those ideas over and over and over again on every level in every field of science.
More giant bones found thought to be 5000 years old:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/skeletons-china-giants-5000-year-old-archaeologists-discovered-jiaojia-jinan-shandong-a7824326.html Photos of giant skeletons, footprints, graves, ancient armor, living giants:
http://www.6000years.org/giants.html Why, WHY, would honest scientists hide evidence???
Because they are more interested in promoting an atheistic worldview than presenting all the evidence and showing the truth, that the evolution story does NOT fit the evidence!
Giant humans fit just fine with the Bible. "There were giants in the earth in those days." (Before the flood) And we find giant human fossils, most likely formed during the flood with all the other fossils of everything that died in that worldwide catastrophe.
Did you know that many, many different and separate cultures and peoples from all over the world from ancient times all have global flood legends?
On Hey You Missed Something If the Bible were written by stupid primitive man and is not the Word of the living God who made the heavens and the earth, it should be full of errors. Yet it isn't.
You have made an attempt to prove that there was a math error in the Bible, but that's been proven not a problem at all when you take into account the description provided of the non-cylindrical object.
It should be full of errors.
On the contrary, the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate. It was written by people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so is in fact the Word of God.
How do you explain "pre-scientific" knowledge in the Bible from "primitive imbeciles" of thousands of years ago? Like the fact that the things we see are made of invisible things like atoms and molecules? The fact that the world "hangs on nothing", which was recorded in Scripture an estimated 3500 years ago when many couldn't fathom this apparent impossibility and believed, for instance, that earth rested on a giant turtle's back?
There should be so many errors that finding them would be like collecting shells on the ocean shore. I'm still waiting, after decades of examination, to find these.
