Thank you Colin :)

There are LOTS of found missing links, read the literature.

They do it with fruit flies all the time, because the time between generations is extremely short.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Whoever told you that is full of it. You have thoroughly proven that you know squat about squat.

And that's coming from someone who asks for a "demonstration" of evolution? Give me a break! Aging IS a part of evolution. One could not exist without the other. You are the one who needs to read more, and more importantly, understand what you read... IF you read. If you understood what evolution was, you wouldn't ask for a "demonstration".

So it finally emerges, eh Mike?

It's not the EVIDENCE for evolution you have a problem with, it's the IDEA of evolution.

Thanks for playing!

Evolution: The changing of lifeforms through random mutations which are naturally selected to make the species more fit in its environment.

There are lots of substantial claims based on findings proposed to be missing links. The fruit flies experiment is not an example of evolution.

Evolution DOES have a lot do to with origin of life. It proposes we came from single cells. Don't go with what you're told in the classroom only. Think for yourself. It makes a difference if it was a single cell versus a complete person.....that would mean there was no evolution if we were complete human beings that we are today.

What I was saying is that IF we could create life, we would have a greater understanding and it would add merit to the argument of evolution. Any understanding of life adds to it. Common, don't be ignorant. That's what science is all about.

So I'm debating with your stomach? WTF......................

But if you believe in god you also believe that he controls everything including time, hes not living the the same bounderies as we are, so to that effect, his days may be different than ours.

Im not expert, I dont have a degree in physics like you, so you can explain, is the worl slowing down or speeding up or something, the effects of the big bang or whatever, if this is the case then isnt it at all possible that his day was different than ours? After all he did create time

Itss not if you beleive god controls time :)

NP :-)

A life cycle of a human or animal is not evolution. Do some reading. Maybe I'll turn into a new species when I'm 80.

Explain that to the guy who thinks aging is an example of evolution

lol thanks Charly. See, you didn't have to bash me, I'm not religious. You're arguing with a guy that doesn't feel the need to swallow a new theory of life, just because we know that the Bible is bullshit.

I don't know if evolution is right or wrong. As it stands it does not have enough to support it.

That's rediculous. I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. The entire point is there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter I

The Theory Defined

"Evolution" is a philosophical and speculative theory, of recent origin, whereby it is sought to account for the various elements and compounds of the inorganic world, and also for the countless species of living creatures in the organic world.

By the "inorganic world" is meant the elements and compounds, as minerals and gases, which are without life; and by the "organic world" is meant organisms (plants and animals) which have life.

Although sometimes spoken of as a "scientific" theory, Evolution is not scientific; for science has to do only with facts. Evolution belongs wholly in the realm of speculative philosophy.

The basic assumption of this theory is that all things in nature? living and not living?had a common origin; and that all the diverse elements, compounds, and organisms were developed by the Cumulative effect of changes, in themselves imperceptibly small, all of which changes were brought about by the energy of "forces resident in nature."

The theory assumes the existence of Matter and Force, without attempting to account for the origin of either. Matter is supposed to have existed originally in a perfectly simple and undifferentiated condition. Its form is supposed to have been that of an exceedingly tenuous, highly heated mist or vapor, filling all space. Force is also assumed to have been exceedingly simple at the first, being nothing more than a tendency on the part of the entire mass of undifferentiated Matter to keep in motion.

As to where Matter came from, and Force, and the tremendous uniform Heat, necessary to keep Matter in a gaseous state, the theory is silent.

The theory further assumes that, at some time, and for some unexplained reason, the motion of the particles of matter began to take different directions, and also that, by the radiation of the heat of parts of the mass, liquefaction and ultimately solidification resulted. Where the heat so radiated could have gone?seeing that all parts of infinite space were supposedly heated alike?is not explained; nor how, in a perfectly uniform mass, parts could assume a permanently solid form, and other parts a normally liquid form, while other parts remained normally gaseous. Upon the theory of Cosmic Evolution all gases and liquids should long ago have evolved into solids.

These great changes in Matter are supposed to have been accompanied by equally notable changes in Force. Differences of "Environment" having now arisen, of which differences the theory has no explanation, the effects of Force or Energy would be influenced thereby, in such wise as to produce diversities of forms, until, by the continuous operation of those processes, with ever increasing ramifications and complexities, the infinite varieties of creatures, animate and inanimate, which now compose the universe, came to be what they are.

Such are the words by which the theory of Evolution is set forth; but the only clear thing about them is that they do not explain the origin of the universe or of any of its parts.

Other principles are called to the aid of Evolution at different stages of the cosmic process; e.g. Heredity, Environment, Natural Selection, Struggle for Existence, Survival of the Fittest, Transmission of Acquired Characters, etc.

With these auxiliary factors we have but little concern, our object being to inquire what, if any, foundation in fact there is for the basic theory. If that falls, the auxiliary factors must of necessity fall with it.

According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, the leading exponent of the theory, evolutionary changes are of three principal sorts: (1) a change from a less coherent to a more coherent state; (2) a change from a more homogeneous to a less homogeneous state; (3) a change from a less

definite to a more definite state.

Le Conte defines Evolution as "(1) continuous progressive change, (2) according to fixed laws, (3) by means of resident forces."

It is important to note the expression "resident forces," which excludes the idea of a Creator acting in or upon the universe.

Such is the theory in its broad outlines; and it is evident that thus far it is wholly imaginative and speculative, every essential feature being assumed without a particle of proof. Indeed it may be clearly seen that the theory is self-contradictory, as in assuming that (under the supposed conditions) latent heat could discharge so as to permit concentration to take place, when there were no cooler regions into which it could discharge.

Further it is self-evident that the action of Infinite Wisdom and Power would be as much needed for the creation of the supposed Matter and Force, with their supposed capacity for development and diversification, as for the creation of separate elements, compounds, and living species. In fact both Darwin and his co-laborer Wallace had to admit that it was necessary to concede, at various points in the supposed evolution of the world, as well as at the starting point, the working of an outside power, a power not resident in matter. From this admission it follows that there is nothing "unscientific" in the doctrine of Creation by an intelligent Creator.

"Cosmic" And "Organic" Evolution

Nature is seen to exist in two great departments, one comprising things having life, the other things not having life. The former is the "organic" department of nature, the latter the "inorganic." Between these two departments is an impassable gulf. Evolutionists have to concede this; for as Mr. Huxley said, "The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living."

This is a fatal admission; for assuredly, ff the entire organic kingdom emerged out of the inorganic, there would be innumerable "links" between the two. It is simply impossible that all traces of such a stupendous transformation should have been obliterated.

To accommodate the theory to this state of the division of nature, Evolution has been correspondingly divided into "Organic Evolution" and "Inorganic" or "Cosmic Evolution.? Thus we have, at present, two distinct Evolutions, each rigidly confined to its own department of nature. The original Evolution, which evolved living creatures out of inanimate matter, no longer exists. It has gone entirely out of business, and has ceased to exist from the time, whenever it was, that the world of living creatures was separated, by an impassable barrier, from the not-living. It would follow that Evolution is not what it once was. Having once crossed the line which separates the living from the not-living it has lost the power to do so again.

Cosmic Evolution

Cosmic Evolution, or Evolution as it is supposed to operate in the universe at large the starry heavens, the earth and sea and air?calls for but brief notice in this article. Proof of the existence, either now or in past ages, of any such "law" as that of Evolution, is altogether lacking.

Suffice it, therefore, to say that if, anywhere in the universe, at any stage of its existence, undifferentiated matter has been gradually transformed by means of resident forces, into the various substances of earth, sea, and sky, with their widely different and often antagonistic properties, there has never been discovered by mortal man the shadow of a shade of a proof thereof. The results of all investigations that have been made up to the present hour bear accordant witness to the fact that stability of forms and of the properties of inorganic substances, is the fixed rule of nature. Those who accept the idea of Cosmic Evolution must needs do so without any evidence whatever to support it, for none exists.

Organic How then stands the case with respect to Evolution "Organic Evolution"? Is it any better supported than "Cosmic Evolution"! In this field it will be necessary to make a closer examination of facts and phenomena; for living creatures do undergo changes. In fact their existence is one of continuous change.

What characterizes the organic department of nature is the existence of individuals, each living an independent life of its own, and each having its own life-history. Each of these individual organisms comes suddenly into being; it goes through various stages of growth until maturity is reached; it reproduces its kind; it declines and suddenly ceases to exist. This is what we find throughout the entire organic field. But there is nothing in the inorganic department of nature which even remotely resembles this life-story of individuals. That field will be searched in vain for anything out of which the details of the organic world, comprising several millions of species, each with an infinitude of structural and other peculiarities, could conceivably have been evolved. Yet, the theory of Evolution, as an universal or cosmic process, requires us to believe that the entire organic world emerged, at some past era, from the inorganic.

Surely, if such were indeed the case, then the latter would contain abundant evidences thereof, showing how individual entities, with their characteristic life-changes, came into existence. And not only so, but we should also find everywhere inorganic groupings of atoms gradually reaching forth towards organic existence; and most certainly it would be possible by laboratory methods to transform the one into the other.

Due notice should also be taken of the striking fact that the beginning of the existence of each living creature is sudden, that its term of life is short, and that its changes are rapid. Whereas Evolution requires a very gradual coming into existence, exceedingly long histories, and changes of prodigious slowness. The fact then is that, in the field of the living, as in that of the not-living, there is no evidence whatever in support of evolution; but on the contrary every fact and phenomenon cognizable by the senses strongly contradicts that theory. This will become more and more apparent as we proceed.

Man the only thing I can tell you is that if you are seriously interested you can find all the scientific evidence for evolution here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

YAY! Read THAT definition. THAT's what evolution is. It's a SPECULATIVE THEORY! BRAVO!

YAY! So true!

Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter II

Breaks In The Continuity

As we trace in imagination the supposed course of evolution from its assumed beginning in undifferentiated matter onward and upward to the infinite diversities of the organic kingdom, we not only encounter difficulties at every step and in connection with every detail, but we also find certain gaps, deep and wide, for which evolutionists themselves can offer no definite explanation. The first and greatest of these is the gap between the living and the not living. The entire world of living creatures is assumed to have emerged, sometime and somehow, and through "resident forces," out of the inorganic realm. Yet no trace of this marvelous process remains, and the inorganic world exhibits no progressiveness at all, no power or disposition to advance one hair?s breadth.

The next gap is that between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. If the latter, in its entirety, arose out of the former through gradual and infinitesimal changes, no trace of that marvelous development remains; nor can there be found in the vegetable kingdom anything from which the characteristic features of animal life could be evolved.

Next we encounter the great gap between the vertebrates and the invertebrates; then that between the mammals and other vertebrates; then the gaps between each of the two million or so of distinct species of organisms and every other; and finally the immense gap between Man and the highest of the brutes.

In considering these great gaps, and the many lesser ones, it should be borne in mind that Evolution is set forth expressly as a theory of origins, that is to say, as an explanation of how all the infinite varieties of things, living and not-living, came into existence.

But origins, including those of the very broadest kind, are just what the theory conspicuously fails to explain. Thus, to begin with, the evolutionist makes no pretence that his theory can explain the origin of either Matter or Force. The existence of these he must take for granted, and attribute them to an Unknowable First Cause.

The Origin Of Life

Going on further we come to creatures having that mysterious thing called Life. Does Evolution account for the origin of that? Quite the contrary; Darwin himself declared that spontaneous generation is "absolutely inconceivable." His co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, says that "the very first vegetable cell must have possessed altogether new powers"; and he adds, "Here we have indications of a new power at work." Huxley admits that there is no evidence of any link between the living and the not living; and other leading evolutionists could be quoted to the same effect. So, just where an explanation of the origin of a new and extraordinary thing is needed, Evolution?that great theory of origins?completely breaks down. Matter and force do not account for the origin of life. Therefore Darwin had to accept the truth of divine fiat to explain it. He seems, in accepting this truth, to seek, by the use of fine language, to disguise the fact that it is fatal to his theory. Note his words: "There is a grandeur in this view of Life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into the first forms or into one." If so, then is there not the same "grandeur" in the view of the direct action of the Creator in the origin of every substance and species? Mr. Darwin admits (because he must) that there is nothing "unscientific" in assuming the direct intervention of the Creator in originating the first living forms; and if so there is nothing unscientific in assuming His intervention to create all living species.

The Origin Of The Animal Kingdom

Going still further, we come to the animal kingdom, whose species have powers (as locomotion, feelings, etc.) not possessed by the vegetable. What has Evolution to say as to the origin of that? Not a word. Here again Mr. Wallace admits that the advance from the vegetable to the animal kingdom is "completely beyond all possibility of explanation by Matter, its laws and forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness, constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and vegetable kingdoms."

Thus, in respect to the origins of the major divisions of nature, the theory of Evolution is a confessed failure. It cannot even pretend to account for them. This fact will be emphasized when we come to point out, later on, that the foremost evolutionists, including Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, utterly repudiated the Darwinian theory of the Origin of Species. It would be difficult or impossible to find a naturalist of the first rank who would support that theory today. Haeckel alone, of the older naturalists, stood for its defense; and he was utterly discredited because of his audacious and unscrupulous conduct in forging evidences to support the theory. But we would at this point ask, what is the value of, and what credence should be given to, a Theory of Origins which admittedly is unable to account for the origin of Matter, Force, Life, the Animal Kingdom, and the Species!

Other Origins

Passing on, in our general survey of nature, and without further reference at present to the Origin of Species (of which we have more to say later), we come to the Vertebrates, that is to say, that large and superior order of living creatures which have a backbone.

Does Evolution give us any explanation of that? None whatever. While the difference between the vertebrates and invertebrates is not so conspicuous and notable as that between the living and not-living, or that between the vegetable and animal kingdom, yet Evolution is just as impotent to explain the one as the other. There is not the slightest evidence to show that creatures having no backbone "evolved" the many species of vertebrates, nor is there even a plausible suggestion as to how such a thing could be brought to pass.

Looking further, we come to the large and important class of Mammals, that is to say, species whereof the female imparts nourishment to its young from the breast. Certain species of vertebrates?the birds, reptiles and fishes?have not this peculiarity, nor anything approaching it. These, however, are far inferior to those creatures which have the nourishing breast. So we ask again the question: Does Evolution account for it? And again the answer must be in the negative. There is no connecting link between the two classes; nor are there any groups of non-mammals that are reaching out to enter the great class of Mammalia.

We would at this point dispose of an unwarranted inference which is often urged (in the total absence of proofs) in support of the theory of Evolution. That inference is that because there are many species which have features in common?as backbones, and nourishing breasts?those species must have had a common origin. That is to say, resemblances are supposed to point to an ancestor common to all. But the inference is without warrant. Such resemblances are just as consistent with the dogma of Creation as with the theory of Evolution. Resemblances are to be expected in the works of an all-wise Creator.

For when He has devised a contrivance, as a backbone, to serve a certain purpose, He would inevitably use the same device in whatever place that purpose was to be served, with only such modifications and adaptations as the varying needs of individual species might require.

We need not continue any further, for our present purpose, our general survey of the field of the organic kingdoms of nature. We deem it sufficient under this heading to say that, in not one of these orders and species, and in not one of the countless billions of organisms comprised in them, has there ever been seen the slightest tendency to advance, or to depart from its type. On the contrary, there is found in every living creature the most stubborn and unconquerable determination not to evolve. The whole universe, therefore, and every member of it, is a witness against Evolution.

Furthermore, if Evolution were the law of progress of the universe, it is manifest that there would be no species or other lines of division. There would be only individual forms, shading imperceptibly one into another, each in the process of becoming something else, so that classification would be an impossibility. The world that lies before us, composed of clearly marked divisions, orders, classes, species, all sharply defined and separated one from another by impassable barriers, is just the opposite of such a world as the supposed law of Evolution would produce. We can, therefore, summon heaven and earth, land and sea, and all the hosts of them to bear witness, that Evolution is a myth.

Maybe the dinos were too big to fit in the Noahs ark?

Nice cut and paste speedbump.

:1orglaugh

Well, if you believe in a God you don't need physics to explain time. You can just make up whatever you want and say physics doesn't apply where god is.

I think you are left with the problem though, that Genesis does define what a day is and it seems quite clearly to refer to a day on Earth.

I still say these are "conflicts" between the Genesis account and modern science - pretty big ones if you ask me. You say there is "no conflict" but then go on to bring in extra outside assumptions in order to make it not conflict. You are talking about what you "believe" in order to fix these conflicts.

If you define conflict in such a way that you can bring in as many outside assumptions you want then the word conflict doesn't really have much meaning.

lol

Permanence Of The Species

The matter of the permanence of species deserves special consideration. It is admitted on all hands that there is no Evolution in the individual organism?but that the contrary rule holds everywhere. For the individual comes into being suddenly, matures quickly, reproduces, and suddenly ceases to be. The evolutionist, however, claims that it is the species, not , the individual organism, that has come into existence through Evolution. The species, says he, is governed by the "law" of Evolution, though (strange to say) the individuals which compose the species are exempt from it.

There is, however, a serious and obvious flaw in the logic which would distinguish thus between the individual, and the species to which it belongs; for the species cannot exist apart from the individuals composing it, any more than a river can exist apart from its water. The species is merely an abstraction; and there is obviously no way a species can evolve, except by the evolving of all the individuals composing it. Strictly speaking, and for the purposes of a discussion like this, "species" do not exist. What exist in nature are simply innumerable individuals each having its own life. Individuals which have life of the same sort are said to constitute a "species." Therefore, evolutionary changes, if they take place at all, must needs begin and continue in individuals.

It follows that, if there be no inherent tendency in individual organisms to depart from their ancestral types, there could not be any development of new species. If, on the other hand, the immense number of existing species did come into their present state of being through evolutionary changes, effected by resident forces (as distinguished from the act of a Creator from without) then we should find no distinct species of plants and animals, but a very different state of things; for, instead of definite and persistent types, we should have a confusion of nondescript individuals, each in process of becoming something different from what its ancestors were.

Evolution assumes that all things in the organic World are endowed with two opposite and mutually antagonistic tendencies, first a tendency to depart from its ancestral type under the influence of changes in "environment," and second, a tendency to hold tightly all its peculiarities, and to transmit them to its offspring.

These two tendencies could not exist in the same creatures. The former is purely imaginary. It is contrary to all the observed facts of nature. For, so far from there being any tendency on the part of individuals to depart from the ancestral type, and so far from there being any evidence of "resident forces" in them, impelling them to do so, the fact is?always and everywhere?that individual organisms evince a most stubborn tendency to cling to the ancestral type, despite all influences to the contrary.

This important fact can be stated very strongly; for scientific men, like Luther Burbank, have sought by every conceivable means to develop new species. But, notwithstanding some remarkable results in the way of "varieties," it has been found (1) that the barrier of species cannot be crossed, (2) that every "variety" produced artificially, if left to itself for a few generations, reverts to the original type. In a word, what we find in each and all the thousands of species of living creatures is, perfect obedience to the primal law of their being, given to them by their Creator when He said, "Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind * * * and the living creature, after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after his kind; and it was so" (#Ge 1:11, 24). It was "so" then; and beyond all question it is "so" now.

Here we see that Evolution comes into direct collision both with the facts of nature and with the statements of the Word of God.

Development Of "Varieties"

A "species" may embrace many distinct "varieties," and man has indeed been able to produce artificially many varieties of existing species. But it is always necessary to maintain by artificial means the modifications thus produced, else the individuals speedily revert to the original ancestral condition.

Thus, upon consideration of these modifications of type, it is found that, so far from lending any support to the theory of Evolution, they furnish a strong argument against it. For it is essential to that theory that modifications, when of advantage to the possessor, should become fixed in the family, and be carried forward to all succeeding generations. But what we find in actual experience is just the reverse.

Moreover, while varieties without number can be easily produced, it has been found impossible, even in a single instance, to cross the line of species. Thus, we see many varieties of dog. The canine species includes the great shaggy St. Bernard, and the diminutive smooth skinned terrier. But in every case it is a dog, and is recognized by his fellow dogs as such. No amount of breeding, or cross-breeding, could ever make him anything but a dog.

Indeed it is demonstrable that the species are absolutely fixed; and that so far from there being a general tendency on the part of all animate creatures to depart from the ancestral type, there is, on the contrary, found to be an invariable and inexorable law, which absolutely forbids such departure. Since we regard this fact as fatal to the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, we will give the explanation of it in the words of a famous evolutionist, Mr. Huxley, who says:

"If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course have off-spring of the like kind; and if you make the offspring breed together, you obtain the same result; and if you breed from these again, you will still have the same kind of offspring. There is no check. But if you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be to each other, and make them breed together, you will find a check.

If you cross two such species, then, although you may get offspring in the case of the first cross, yet if you attempt to breed from the products of that crossing (which are what are called hybrids) that is, if you mate a male and a female hybrid, then the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all."

We need not inquire the explanation of this, though Mr. Huxley says, "the reason is quite obvious in some cases"; for the fact is admitted on all hands.

Now what, we would ask, is the inference to be drawn from this fact? Certainly it follows that the evolution of one species from another is an impossibility; so that, at this point again, the theory breaks down completely. Indeed we can read as much between the lines of the admission which Mr. Huxley himself is constrained, though with manifest reluctance, to make. He says:

"After much consideration, and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin?s views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by ?species? in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural." And again; "Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that link will be wanting."

Later on Mr. Huxley definitely rejected the Darwinian theory, as we will point out hereafter.

Reproduction

We have referred in the foregoing pages to the power, inherent in all living creatures, to reproduce their kind. This universal fact, which obviously is essential to the continuance of every species, raises the important question, how did the power of reproduction originate? It is evident that the very first (as well as all subsequent) organisms must have possessed this marvelous power. Whence then did it come? Manifestly it could not have arisen by a gradual process of Evolution; for the very first organisms must have had it in the same perfection as their offspring. Here again the doctrine of Creation appears to great advantage in comparison with the defective theory of Evolution; for, as a prominent part of the inspired description of Creation, are the words: "Grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind" etc. Those words fully account for the power of reproduction possessed by all living creatures.

In concluding under this heading we want to say that it would suffice to put the case for Evolution entirely out of court that there should be found no evidence sufficient in character and amount to establish it. But the case against it is far stronger than that. For even those who give no weight to the testimony of the Bible on this point, have to admit that there are no observable tendencies on the part of any one of the billions of living creatures to depart from the ancestral type, but that, per contra, where variations have been produced artificially, they are but slight in character, and the tendency is invariably to go backward and not forward. This is a strong disproof of Evolution.

You guys are just as bad as the Republican Right Ultra Religious Fanatics.

It's bash bash bash, squash anybody elses's opinion, call him names.

Are we in the 1400's? It just seems the roles have been reversed. Persecute the agnostic!

Who is Philip Mauro?

Ask theking

Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter III

Science Not An Authority

In this chapter we propose to examine the reasons usually advanced in support of the theory of Evolution. Those reasons relate entirely to Organic Evolution, or the Origin of Species and the "Descent of Man"; for there is (so far as we are aware), no pretence that any facts are known from which the theory of Cosmic Evolution could be inferred.

It should be pointed out, before entering upon this examination, that it is easy to impose upon the majority of people by an appeal to "Science" as an authority. Thus, we often hear it said, "Science has discovered this," or "Science tells us that," as if the matter were thereby conclusively settled. But it would be well to ask, who is "Science"? and where does he live? And how comes he to know these things? The fact is there is no "Science" in this sense. It is true that a few capable men have attempted to explore the field of Nature in various directions, and have ascertained a fact or two, to which they have added a thousand guesses. But they have left a million questions unanswered, without which no safe conclusions can be drawn. It is the commonest thing for "Science" to contradict one day what it most positively asserted the day previous; so that, in view of the existing state of complete scientific ignorance on the subject of origins, it would be absurd to accept as true any statement on that subject in the name of "Science."

A few years ago Mr. Thomas A. Edison, commenting upon the boasted progress of Science, said that if the same rate of progress were maintained for the next two thousand years, mankind might then be in a position to begin to draw conclusions.

Reasons Given In Support Of Evolution

In examining the reasons that are commonly given in support of the theory, we shall select those which are deemed, by its advocates, to be the strongest. These are (1) the changes which are observed to occur in the embryo of the human species from its first beginning to its full development, which changes are assumed to be, in their order and character, a recapitulation of the changes through which the species itself is supposed to have passed in the course of its development; (2) the succession of living forms in time; it having been ascertained from geological researches, that the more simple forms of life are, generally speaking, found in the lower strata of rocks, and those more complex higher up.

Embryology We put this argument first because (a) it is generally deemed the strongest, and (b) it is from out of the studies of changes in the embryo (embryology) that the idea of Evolution sprang. So we have now the opportunity to examine the theory at its point of origin.

The argument from embryology consists of two suppositions, for neither of which is there any proof whatever. First it is assumed that the human species did evolve by gradual changes, passing from a simple unicellular creature, such as the Amoeba, through successively higher species until it became Man; and second, it is assumed that the human embryo passes through the same changes in its prenatal history of about nine months. Manifestly we have here no proof of Evolution; for in this argument, Evolution is taken for granted. It cannot be possibly known whether the changes of the embryo are a resume of the history of development of the species, until it is known what that history was. Therefore we are thrown back upon the question, can Evolution be (certainly inferred from the changes of the embryo?

First let it be observed that there is no proved or necessary relationship between the growth of the embryo and the history of its species. If indeed the embryo does perform, in the short space of nine months, the stupendous feat of changing from Amoeba to Man, passing swiftly through all the intervening species, it would be a most miraculous and supernatural thing, whereof it were vain to seek an explanation in the sphere of nature. Evolution, however, is exceedingly slow. It demands millions of years to effect slight changes. It denies and excludes the miraculous from the sphere of nature. It cannot, therefore, assume a prodigious miracle in its own support. The supposed transformations of the embryo tend not in the slightest to prove the truth of the theory. Those changes, like all others in the history of a living creature, belong in the category of the mysteries of life, concerning which science has been able thus far to give no explanation whatever. "The way of the tree of life" (#Ge 3:24) has been effectually kept from all prying investigators.

But let us go deeper into the subject, and ask, what are the changes which take place in the human embryo? And do they really constitute an evolution V Upon pressing this inquiry we find first, that the likeness of the human embryo to that of other creatures at different stages of its growth is a mere superficial resemblance; for even the evolutionist would not pretend that there is any essential likeness between them; and second, that even in those superficial and transient resemblances the growth of the embryo does mot go through the stages of the supposed development of man. These objections are fatal.

(1) In a case of this sort, superficial resemblances count for nothing; for beneath them there are, in fact, vital differences. The human embryo is, at all stages of its growth, the human embryo.

It is at every stage, essentially different from that of the worm, the fish, and from that of every other mammal. Prof. Fairhurst says:

"It is evident that while all eggs, from that of the sponge to that of man, may seem to be alike in structure, they are really as far apart in their essential nature as are the fully developed sponge and the full-grown man. Taking the embryos of man and fish the argument of the evolutionist is as follows: The embryos of man and fish, at a certain stage of development, are closely alike in appearance; therefore, man and fish had a common ancestral origin. The conclusion which the evolutionist draws is based upon a mere seeming and very transient resemblance, while the fact that the two embryos are essentially unlike is shown by the vast distance apart at which they arrive by development. It is true that the embryos of vertebrates look much more alike than do the adults, and that the eggs are still nearer alike in appearance than are the embryos; but I insist again that the embryos are no nearer together in essential structure than the adults. The egg which can be developed into a man is just as different in nature from the egg of a fish, as the man is from the fish. The eggs are essentially unlike. The essential qualities of eggs are beyond the power of the microscope to reveal. The human embryo is produced by human beings only; and whatever may be its microscopic appearance, it is at every stage of its development strictly human. Embryology, as applied to Evolution, fails in that it deals only with the surface of things."

Thus the strongest argument of the evolutionist breaks down completely for the reason that the facts are the reverse of what his theory calls for.

(2) Furthermore, even the superficial changes of the human embryo do not represent anything like the complete line of the supposed human ancestry. Prof. Fairhurst says that the entire first half of the history of Evolution is not even hinted at in the epitome (Organic Evolution Considered, p. 147). Further he says:

"There are radical differences between the embryos of vertebrates and invertebrates. Worms and other articulates in embryo lie doubled backwards around the yolk, while all vertebrates are doubled in the opposite direction. According to the theory that the embryonic condition is a recapitulation of the stages of organic evolution, this fundamental fact of invertebrate embryology ought to have been preserved by the vertebrate. Evolution gives no account of this reversal of position by the vertebrates."

There are other gaps in the succession of changes through which the embryo passes; but it is needless to speak of them. Enough has been said to show that the argument from embryology is not only a far-fetched inference, but that the facts are the reverse of what the inference calls for.

It is of interest to note that Dr. Romanes, one of the most extreme of evolutionists, declared the facts of embryology to be "the most important of the lines of evidence" in support of Evolution. While holding those views he wrote strongly against the Bible doctrine of Creation, and against supernaturalism in general. "But later he changed his views entirely, and died in 1894, confessing his faith, not only in the providence of God, but in the deity of Christ." (Fairhurst: Theistic Evolution, p. 11.)

Science books aren't written with "gut feelings". :2 cents:

theking,

Evolution does not require a "gradual coming into existence". Just look up "punctuated equilibrium" by Eldridge and Gould.

:1orglaugh

Succession Of Species

The evolutionist also appeals, in support of his theory, to the fact that the fossils preserved in the sedimentary rocks indicate that the various species did not come into existence all at once, but successively; and that (general-ly speaking) the simpler forms came first into existence, and the more complex later in point of time.

To this argument the obvious answer is that the fact of the successive appearance of the several species does not tend in the least to prove that the later were derived from the earlier by a process of evolution, or by any other process. The succession of the species can be explained by Creation, as well as by Evolution. In fact the record of Creation in Genesis 1, declares that vegetation first appeared on earth, then fishes, then birds, then land animals, and finally Man. The geological remains show the same order. Manifestly then the argument from succession of species lends no support whatever to the theory we are discussing.

But we can go further than this; for when the details of the geological records, as presented by the science of paleontology, are examined, it is found that they bear heavily against the theory. This is conceded by the very foremost evolutionists, insomuch that, to escape the force of the paleontological proofs, they are driven to the pitiful expedient of supposing that there have been millions of extinct species and transitional forms which have left no trace of their existence, and that if by any means the lost evidence could be recovered, it would prove their case.

The fact is that an enormous mass of evidence has been accumulated by means of geological researches. Here we have the footprints of the distant past, the records of the periods which would certainly be rich in the evidences of the evolutionary origin of the various species, if such were indeed the nature of their beginning. The evolutionist examines this great mass of facts and finds nothing which supports his theory, but much to the contrary. His only comment on the situation is that Nature has, with invidious discrimination, destroyed the great bulk of the evidence, including every trace of the operation of Evolution, and every one of the thousand billion variant forms which must have existed, and has preserved only such evidences, and those in great abundance, as oppose his theory.

It may be said of this explanation that it is even harder to understand and to accept than that which it purports to explain?the absence of all trace of a "law" which is said to have operated universally and from the very beginning of time. The great god, Evolution, is indeed as difficult to locate or find a trace of as the Olympian Zeus.

Imagine a litigant in court upon whom rests the burden of proof. He insists that the averments of his declaration are true, and demands a verdict in his favor; but he has no proofs to sustain his allegations. In fact all the evidence presented in court is against him. He demands, nevertheless, that judgment be rendered in his favor upon the supposition (a) that volumes of proofs, which once existed, have been destroyed, leaving no trace; and (b) that if those proofs could now be produced they would be found to be in his favor i Such is the absurd plight in which the theory of Evolution now finds itself, as matters stand at present.

As to this important feature of the discussion it is enough to say that, considering the great mass of fossilized remains which have been collected from every stratum, and from every part of the world, the presumption is that, if the records were complete, the parts now missing would confirm what we have.

Species Appeared Suddenly

The first fossil remains of organisms are found in the Primordial period. Le Conte says that in it are found "the representatives of all the great types of animals, except the vertebrates." Thus, according to the evidence (which, by Le Conte?s statement, is massive in quantity and clear in character), numerous highly organized creatures?about half the entire animal kingdom in fact?came suddenly and virtually simultaneously into existence.

Of their supposed progenitors, of whom, if Evolution be true, countless billions must have existed, not a trace survives in the earlier formations. This is the more impressive because those earlier formations are estimated to have occupied about half the entire period of geological time.

(In this discussion we are giving the evolutionist the advantage of supposing, for the purpose of the argument, that his theory of immense ages of geological time is correct. That theory is, in fact, quite destitute of supporting proof, and we wish it to be understood that we do not accept it as true.)

Hey, I'm as much of a believer in the sciences as you. Evolution is not one......yet

:1orglaugh

Thought everyone might like to know who this 'Philip Mauro' is that theking is cutting and pasting...

Well apparently he's a 'King James bible defender': http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kjvdefendersmauro.htm

A fundamentalist Baptist.

You are dismissed Sgt. Speedbump!

:1orglaugh

Great Gaps Between Species Existed From The First

Another very striking fact which this earliest record of living creatures presents is that, "frown the very beginning the great gulfs which separate the animal kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then, and have continued till the present time" (Fairhurst). Considering that the interval from the Primordial period until now is estimated by physicists at fifty millions of years, we have in this fact of stability of the species a conclusive proof that Evolution is a myth.

Another striking fact, to which these records bear witness, and which is fatal to the theory, is that every species, as it suddenly appears, has its complete organism; that is to say, it is fully developed in every feature of its structure, however complex.

If, therefore, we place ourselves in imagination in the Primordial period, amidst the immense number of varieties of living creatures then existent, whether we look backward into the past, or forward into the future, we see that Evolution had nothing whatever to do with their origin or development. In one direction we see no long ancestral line from which they were gradually evolved; for the species, like each individual member thereof, came into being suddenly.

This may be termed "negative" evidence. But such evidence is sometimes conclusive, as when a thorough exploration of an island reveals no remains what. ever of man or human implements, it may be concluded with certainty that it was never inhabited by man.

But on looking forward the evidence is positive, as well as conclusive. For the very same species found in the Primordial era, and appearing suddenly, are in existence today without substantial change of structure or habit of life. Evolution requires, and of course would produce, life-forms quite flexible and plastic, structures such that every part of every organ and surface would be liable at all times to variation, and would be subject to change whenever a change of environment occurs. But we find, on the contrary, absolute rigidity of both structure and habit. On this evidence we are bound to conclude that living creatures originated in a manner very different from that assumed by the evolutionist.

As has been already stated, the earliest geological remains of organisms show lower and higher forms of life existing side by side. Now, according to Evolution, the former would be the progenitors of the latter; and upon that supposition there must have been already at that early period an immense evolutionary advance, which would imply that such lower forms were exceedingly progressive in character. But this supposition (and with it the entire theory) is completely negatived by the fact that those self-same forms have persisted without change to this very day. Instead of being progressive, as Evolution demands, they are proven to be absolutely unprogressive. Every one of those million forms is a venerable witness (50 million years old, if our geologists are right) against the theory of Evolution.

What reply has the evolutionist to these facts? Worse than none.

Mr. Huxley, one of the ablest of them all, and one who openly devoted his great talents to the destruction of faith in Divine revelation, has faced these facts in his address to the Royal Geological Society in 1870. He puts the question thus:

"What then does an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification (i.e. Evolution), which suppose that modification to have taken place from more to less embryonic forms, from more to less generalized types, within the limits of the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?" And he answers the question by saying, "I reply, it negatives those doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of such modifications, or it demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have been very slight. The significance of persistent types, and the small amount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be shown to have been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the longer I occupy myself with the Biology of the past" (quoted by Th. Graebner, in "Evolution").

The Fragmentary Character Of The Record

The disappointed evolutionist pleads the imperfection of the geological records. In order that his theory may not be dismissed for lack of proof, he asks us to believe that much of the pertinent evidence has been lost, and that what has been lost was in favor of his theory. But Le Conte says: "We think the fragmentariness of the geological record has been overstated." And the Duke of Argyll, in his Organic Evolution Cross-Examined, shows conclusively that, in certain periods, the plea of imperfection of the record is completely ruled out.

"There are," says he, "some tracts of time regarding which our records are as complete as we could desire. In the Jurassic rocks we have a continuous and undisturbed series of long and tranquil deposits, containing a complete record of all the new forms of life which were introduced during those ages of oceanic life. And those ages were as a fact long enough to see not only a thick (1300 feet) mass of deposit, but also the first appearance of hundreds of new species. These are all as definite and distinct from each other as are existing species. No less than 1850 new species have been counted, all of them suddenly born, all of them lasting only for a time, and all of them in their turn superseded by still newer forms. There is no sign of mixture or of confusion, or of infinitesimal, or of intermediate variations. These ?Medals of Creation? are all, each of them, struck by a new die, which never failed to impress itself on the plastic materials of this truly creative work."

Could it be shown that but only one species originated otherwise than by slight modification of the structure of pre-existent species, that would suffice to overthrow the theory of Evolution. But the science of paleontology presents us with clear evidences of thousands of species coming suddenly into existence; and on the other hand there is not the faintest indication that there was ever a species that carne into being in any other way.

We have, therefore, found that what evolutionists put forward as the strongest proofs of their theory?Embryology and Paleontology? yield, when closely examined, convincing, indeed conclusive, evidence against it.

This page entitled: TESTIMONIES OF KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS - PHILIP MAURO ought to give you a clue ;)

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kjvdefendersmauro.htm

Maybe we will one day evolve into a species who can debate without name calling








But I dount it :)

And you believe in evolution. Neither one of you can prove or disprove your theory to me.

Colin,

theking isn't listening, he's too busy cutting and pasting.

It is used by a few, but it's a flawed argument.

1. Man did not evolve from monkeys and apes, we had a common ancestor.

2. Even if we did evolve from monkeys and apes (which we didn't) that doesn't mean monkeys and apes can't still be around. There are tons of primitave species that still exist, which brought about other species; sharks, round worms, ferns, conifers, just to name a few.