Hello my brothers and sisters.
I am sorry it's been so long, but I am happy to have this forum to come to anytime.
I have come up with what I feel is a very effective challenge for anyone who believes in evolution, and more specifically in those who believe the lies being indoctrinated into our children's minds in about every major university on the continent in regards to the overwhelming "evidence" of graduated transitional fossils.
First of all, and right off the top, I emphatically deny any G.T.F. exist anywhere on the planet. Every time I have asked for photos or any other proof of these G.T.F. I inevitably am directed to some obscure web site which will show very impressive charts and explanations accompanied by really nice artwork depicting such fossils, but never any real, actual photos, or locations of the real fossils.
One of the most respected evolutionists of our generation, the late Steven J. Gould, was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation, made the following remark...
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….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 never see the very process we profess to study.” - Stephen J. Gould - “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Now what he means about "data only at the tips and nodes of their branches" is that what we observe in the fossil record exclusively, are fully formed animals, and not ever any intermediates.
In other words, we do not see any animals in the process of becoming another , different species.
For example, we don't see any fish with back legs.
If we think about it logically, we would expect the "transitionals to make up the vast majority of the fossil record.
Let's say for example there was a fish...a fully formed fish just swimming around minding his own business.
Then, one day it has young ones, and one of them happens to have grown one tiny toe out of the side...then when that fish has young ones, the same thing happens with all it's off spring.
Over the life of that one fish, it may have thousands and thousands of young ones with that same toe.
Then, thousands and thousands of years later, one of the fish with the toe has offspring and on of them has four toes...take this to it's logical conclusion until we have a fully formed lizard.
Toes would then have a foot, then there would be toes on the other side and a foot, then the legs, then the lungs then all the other thousands of slow random unaided changes which are needed to finally go from the first original fish the final outcome, the lizard.
So, the fossil record should show many many millions of in betweens, or graduated transitional changes...but it doesn't. As Steven J. Gould states, "the trade secret of paleontology" is that these in betweens simply do not exist!
It's a secret because our children are not being told about it! This has serious connotations when we consider how the courts voted against having the "other side" told in class. The other side includes inconvenient truths such as this one, and many many more.
Many people do not know this but the supreme court ruled that atheism is also a religion, and so why is one religion allowed to be taught in our schools and not the other?
OK, now evolutionists have tried explain this away by saying the conditions which allow fossils to be created is very unstable and most of these missing fossils were obviously washed away before they could form!
What!?? OK, let's try and set this most unlikely explanation aside and think about the odds of this happening.
Here's my challenge to evolutionists.
Imagine you have taken a photo of a person who has lived let's say for sake of argument 80 years, once a year on his/her birthday.
OK, so we have 81 photos starting from birth to one year old to death at eighty.
Let's say these photos represent the fossil record of one species, which is represented as the new born photo, and another fully formed different species which is represented by the final 80 year old photo.
OK, now, let's scatter all these photos over a one thousand acre farmer's field.
OK, a few months go by and you go back to see what is remaining of the 81 photos.
What would you logically expect to find? The newborn photo and the 80 years photo only? I doubt it.
You would find a scattered remnant of a mixture of the photos representing all ages roughly.
You may find photos of the baby years...some would be in seriously poor shape, and others would be not so bad, but you would find other photos representing the teen years, and others representing adult and finally old age.
Let's say you only found twenty of the 81 photos.
You would no doubt have a vast majority of the in between years as opposed to only the first and last photo right?
OK, let's say for the sake of argument that by some amazing fluke, we did only find the first and last photo...this is only representative of one transitional right?
So, now let's do the same photo experiment representing all human history. So, for every human being do the same experiment.
Now toss all these photos over the same field and return a few months later.
What are the odds that you would find only the new born and final photos for all humankind??
Right...
This is exactly what evolutionists are teaching our children. This is why Steven J. Gould exposed this lie in his honest assessment of the actual facts surrounding evolution as it pertains to graduated transitional fossils.
All we find are fully formed animals and zero in betweens which Darwin himself admitted would be the death of his theory.
John
You certainly write well. However, there are no links to prove your statement.
The evolutionists are teaching us how the earth came to be. And what has transpired during that time. If that threatens your belief in your deity, I'd say you have little faith.
Author