The Fossil Record As Evidence For Creation
Posted: Monday, May 17, 2010
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
One does not have to go very far to find that the fossil record does not uphold Darwinism in the least. There are many evolutionists who readily acknowledge that the fossil record actually shows little to no evidence of transitional forms between species. This is not just now showing up. Charles Darwin acknowledged it himself in his famous book, Origin of Species. Read these statements from his book:
But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? (Page 144)
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. (Page 149).
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. (Page 230)
It has always amazed this writer, to see many scientists who so wanted to be right, they would distort truths to make them fit their pre-determined hypotheses.
Yet when they see the utter lack of evidence to uphold the Darwinian theory, they will still strive to come up with some unfounded explanation. The sheer absence of these transitional fossils, not only fails to prove their theory to be correct, it proves, instead, that it is wrong!
Almost without exception, evolutionary scientists will use language in their descriptions, which sounds as if they do have some transitional fossils. When in reality, of all the millions of fossil specimens, there are none that are unquestionably transitional. None! When they are presented with some minute piece of bone and claim it to be a piece of some transitional creature, they are elated!. That is absolutely ridiculous. As Darwin mentions above, there should be millions, where ever fossils are found. But none are there. Listen to these words of the late Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard, leading spokesman for evolutionary theory. Notice underlined phrases.
"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear
2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. (Gould: Evolution's erratic pace)(Underlined emphasis mine-JHH)
Dr. Colin Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the British museum and also is an editor of a prestigious scientific journal. He wrote a book entitled "Evolution". Upon being asked by Luther Sunderland, why he did not include any photos of transitional fossils, he gave this reply:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
These remarks by staunch evolutionists should put an end to gradualism as a proof of evolution. They, as the scientists advocating the spontaneous beginning of life, have no leg to stand on. No evidence whatsoever.
This Article has been viewed 399 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Your article is food for thought, Joel. Truly. I realize how ignorant I am. Thanks.Thanks Jennifer for your comment, but come on, you certainly aren't ignorant overall. There are certain points we all have in which we are ignorant...I for one have many, many.
I always remember when I took geology (back when I was playing atheist) and they had one layer which was totally out of place in its strata according to evolution - it wasn't there because of upheaval or any physical explanation... I wish I could recall more about it so I could research that. But it was a big clue back then that maybe Darwinism wasn't the answer only I didn't want to see it then. Thanks for this most interesting article! Once again....Thanks Marijo for reading and the nice comment. Every time i become re-involved in this study, I lose additional respect for many top scientists. They know they are wrong but will not admit it. Some are willing to admit they have no proof but they are convinced that they will have someday. The argument will be resolved alright.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.