Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Apr
16
Do the Bible and Science Mix?
John 3:12
“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things.”
Scientific principles learned in the Bible have led to countless scientific discoveries and saved millions of lives. It’s true. Without the Bible, we would never have the blessings of modern science...
RSS

Reply to comment

Show Me the Transitional Fossils!

 

Today's guest blogger is Charlie Wolcott, a certified math and physics teacher with a degree in Computer Science. In addition to the sport of fencing, he has been involved in the evolution/creation debate for about 12 years and believes that Young Earth Creationism is the best model that fits the data.
The one thing Darwin feared the most about his theory of evolution lies in the earth: fossils. He knew that unless the transitions between the kinds were found, his theory would fall apart. Today, more than 150 years later, what do we find? An extreme lack of transition fossils. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. I agree. It takes a natural disaster such as a volcanic eruption, or perhaps an earthquake or a Flood to produce a very quick burial and pressure to generate such fossils. But what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? 
First, the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today. 
But Darwin's theory doesn't just need fossils. It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. If we count all the fossils that have been claimed to be transitions from apes to humans, we would still have VERY few. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils. 
The number of fossils alone are giving evolution major headaches, and this is without trying to actually link the fossils. Anybody can line up fossils in whatever order he wants, but that does not demonstrate common ancestry. A fossil by itself can tell you one thing and one thing only: it died. A number of fossils will tell you that a number of creatures died. The numbers don't lie. Evolution did not happen.

Today's guest blogger is Charlie Wolcott, a certified math and physics teacher with a degree in Computer Science. In addition to the sport of fencing, he has been involved in the evolution/creation debate for about 12 years and believes that Young Earth Creationism is the best model that fits the data.

The one thing Darwin feared the most about his theory of evolution lies in the earth: fossils. He knew that unless the transitions between the kinds were found, his theory would fall apart. Today, more than 150 years later, what do we find? An extreme lack of transition fossils. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. I agree. It takes a natural disaster such as a volcanic eruption, or perhaps an earthquake or a Flood to produce a very quick burial and pressure to generate such fossils. But what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? 

First, the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today. 

But Darwin's theory doesn't just need fossils. It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. If we count all the fossils that have been claimed to be transitions from apes to humans, we would still have VERY few. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils. 

The number of fossils alone are giving evolution major headaches, and this is without trying to actually link the fossils. Anybody can line up fossils in whatever order he wants, but that does not demonstrate common ancestry. A fossil by itself can tell you one thing and one thing only: it died. A number of fossils will tell you that a number of creatures died. The numbers don't lie. Evolution did not happen.

 

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options