CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution

Free Teeth Cure!
Natural Fluoride free Remineralizer!

Natural Cancer Remedies
Cancer-proof your body with little known immune boosters!

Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...

J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...

Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
golfegg Views: 4,191
Published: 15 years ago
This is a reply to # 275,768

Re: Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution

They siad: "Today, many of the gaps in the paleontological record have been filled by the research of paleontologists. Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. As mentioned earlier, microbial life of the simplest type was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago. The oldest evidence of more complex organisms (that is, eucaryotic cells, which are more complex than bacteria) has been discovered in fossils sealed in rocks approximately 2 billion years old. Multicellular organisms, which are the familiar fungi, plants, and animals, have been found only in younger geological strata."

Can you see how they are only establishing a sequence of events here? Notice they say “evolutionary events?” Not proof of how simple life forms evolved into more complex life forms. They ASSUME or as they put it “conclude” they must have evolved from previous life forms. They use words like “powerful argument,” & “compared with confidence,” “postulated,” "infer" as proof for their THEORIES. Their exact words here: “The most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record is that descent with modification has taken place as stated in evolutionary theory.” “Conclusions!” Not evidence.
They are doing the same thing as if we dug up a junk yard 250 million years from now and showed how cars evolved. (Even though they know man created them.) But they are only showing a sequence of events. They still have no proof of how one life form changed into another one.
Also notice they just throw plants into the mix even though they have no proof of how they evolved from creatures that can move?

They said: “Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research.”

Notice they say research, not evidence?

They said: “We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation.”

This is like saying we don’t need proof, our conclusions were right about the Earth’s orbit, and atoms, so “trust us.” They haven’t observed evolution (macro), & they have no experiment proving it. Yet we should trust them because they were right before? They backed that up with evidence yet don't have to with evolution. A BIG DIFFERENCE!

They said: “The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.”

Now if this was how the simple evolved into the complex there would be MANY, MANY examples of transitional or failed attempts in between one life form to another. There would have never been ANY “missing links” in the first place. They would be every where. Also the transition from bacteria to us would have taken MANY MANY MANY changes.
Every physical mutation in humans we’ve observed, and there have been many, have only produced failure. So how many mutations must take place to get just one good mutation? And then how many good mutations to evolve into another life form? It’s virtually impossible to have happened in the time frame they say it did!

God created the different life forms complete and whole, and one of God’s tools, micro evolution, is improving on it constantly. Using their own words, it’s logical to "conclude" this is evidence God is alive and evolving, constantly unfolding God’s creations right before our eyes, since there is no evidence proving otherwise. One can also "conclude" God is not some stagnate being conveyed in the Bible.
Take Care,

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

0.832 sec, (2)