English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

is neither a sea nor a horse..




haha evolutionists .. think about that one !

2006-08-15 05:04:25 · 14 answers · asked by DR. DINO 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

14 answers

SEAHORSE FOSSILS
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist

2006-08-15 05:18:03 · answer #1 · answered by His eyes are like flames 6 · 1 0

And the males are the ones who carry the babies. The female seahorse puts her eggs in his pouch and then visits him on his little patch of sea grass once a day. She keeps him knocked up several months of the year. I wonder why all species doesn't do this. I think it would be poetic justice for some of the deadbeat dads.

2006-08-15 12:13:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

And how can a dragonfly, which is neither a dragon nor a fly, exist as there is a lot of debate surrounding the validity of dragons????

Sorry, I'm an exhibitionist......ummmm....I mean I believe in evolution, but I just couldn't resist.

2006-08-15 12:26:32 · answer #3 · answered by Autumn BrighTree 6 · 0 0

It isn't to be taken literally. It only means a creature that lives in the sea, whose head resembles that of an equine.

2006-08-15 12:28:55 · answer #4 · answered by Jylsamynne 5 · 0 0

Cows with Mohawks = Punk Cow!

2006-08-15 12:11:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

personally I cant get past the cow to whale thing...

cows move to the sea... to find a better environment ot live of course... they love eating sea wees... they fight off alligators and sharks with cow fu!!!... which they cleverly evolved with... they take to the deep waters... and sprout tails and their noses move to... the backs of their heads ... and then whales are made

and there you have it a whale of a tale!!!

this is your brains on evolution?

2006-08-15 12:09:01 · answer #6 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 1 0

You have obviously not evolved enough on your branch of the family tree of humanity. Silly

2006-08-15 12:13:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Haha.. think about this one. Why is it that hemmroids occur in your a$$, and astroids occur in the hemisphere? Shouldn't it be the other way around? :P

2006-08-15 12:12:13 · answer #8 · answered by chicyuna 5 · 0 0

A horsefly is neither a horse nor a fly..........think about that one.

2006-08-15 12:11:05 · answer #9 · answered by cassi 2 · 1 0

Shouldn't you be busy cleaning out your gun horde before the FBI come back?

2006-08-15 12:16:52 · answer #10 · answered by Kithy 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers