Evolutionists, where are all the bodies?

creodont.co.uk...


Tip: Go To American Museum of Natural History, New York. Since you asked where the fossils are.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino

It is like Bread being toasted slowed down by a billion times. Half the time it is still considered bread and then it is considered as Toast. You can see it transitioning and changing over time because of an external enviroment. Because it happens quickly we can say after a minute that slice of bread is now toast and obviously was bread before. Like IMO evolution takes longer and so long with external forces that change with it we cannot see the simple connections.

What came before the elephant, the girraffe, where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.

Well that is still a good question, one I used to ask. I like looking at simple ideas to answers alot because it is easier to pinpoint.

I for one was very intregued when I first learnt about Maltese Prehistoric animals. Where sites such as Ghar Dalam found some very interesting ectinct species such as Giant Swans and Gaint Turtles and Giant Marsupials and then in the opposit direction found Pigmy Elephants and much smaller than normal Hippos (possible infants IMO but nothing close to normal size) Ghar Dalam

With Malta being a recently formed island in retrospect. I cannot find much information on dates sorry. But it is considered recent as in the last 100,000 years. These animals are not found on Mainland Africa nor Mainland Europe but are found on Island habitats.

My view on it is that if there were species that got 'stranded' for close to 100k years then it makes perfect sense for them to change/evolve. Where the animals with a plentifull food source such as the Turtles and Swans (with water surrounding the island plenty of fish come to mind) And with the Elephants becoming much smaller to even being classed as pigmy due to limited land mass and thus limited supply of thier natural foodsource.

Just to add pertaining to the topic with the bones for the OP the case with Ghar Dalam sums it up...... thousands of bones upon bones were found because when it rains it will wash all the remains at surface level down the valley right to the bottom where the Cave Dalam is and like a funnel scoops everything flowing down with clay sediment which then preserves them beautifully. Again vice versa the cave is near the shore and when flooding/storms occor animals from the sea get washed in too. Without this timecapsule of a cave, there is little evedence of these animals at all outside around the island.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Seriously... I learned most of what I currently know about evolution due to debating the yahoos in these threads. Before I had a good idea of how it worked, but my thinking was flawed. Thanks to debunking strawman after strawman in evolution threads (while looking up the real answers to do the debunking), I now understand it better than ever before. What you speak is the truth. All the questions a creationist has, there are answers for that are right at their fingertips. I'm not a scientist and don't have a phd, yet I'm able to learn about all these things easily. And the more I learn, the more I am convinced it is correct (maybe not 100% correct, but it is DEFINITELY going in the right direction).

originally posted by: borntowatch
...where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.

Don't hold your breath...

Darwinian evolution is nothing but a steaming pile of dung.

It's so obvious that it is clearly a massive deliberate fabrication that it's painful.

Not one single particle of scientifically provable evidence has been found in support of it.

At the sane time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

when I try to talk about Darwinism with some people, their eyes glaze over and they start panicking and saying things like:

'Evolution HAS to be true because the only alternative is an old man up in the sky, with a white beard.'

How do you know that is the only alternative? Who told you this?

Darwin's theory: a steaming pile of dung

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

Evolution is little more that a series of stories that loosely almost appear to fit some old evidence. These stories keep being adapted to try to fit new evidence, but now we know too much to believe any of those stories. Evolution isn't science. One evolutionist said: "... All the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked..." ~ Dr. Derek V. Ager Evolution Has Long Been Debunked

"Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques

The theory of evolution can never recover from the obvious objection to it, that there are no credible (in other words ones that have not been proved to be fake or which require a huge dose of faith) transitional fossils in the fossil record when there should be billions of them. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.

There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: borntowatch
...where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.

Don't hold your breath...

Darwinian evolution is nothing but a steaming pile of dung.

It's so obvious that it is clearly a massive deliberate fabrication that it's painful.

Not one single particle of scientifically provable piece of evidence has been found in support of it.

At the sane time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

I cut your useless quote mines out of the response since they do nothing to prove or disprove evolution. Evolution stands on its on merits from its own evidence and quote mines are irrelevant to it.

To be honest, I can't believe you can call yourself a purveyor of truth and say this, "Not one single particle of scientifically provable piece of evidence has been found in support of it." You and I both know that line is a complete lie. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, and you saying that it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

At the sane time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

Then post it. But before you do, DON'T give me a bunch of quote mines. The opinions of various people past and present, scientific or religious is irrelevant. JUST post the evidence that disproves evolution. Though I already know that the above statement like the previous statement I called you out for lying, is also a lie. You won't admit it though because your biased world view doesn't allow for it. I'm also sure, if you even bother to respond to me, that you will be giving me a bunch of useless quote mines that just take up space.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: borntowatch
...where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.

Don't hold your breath...

Darwinian evolution is nothing but a steaming pile of dung.

It's so obvious that it is clearly a massive deliberate fabrication that it's painful.

Not one single particle of scientifically provable evidence has been found in support of it.

At the sane time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

I managed to read through those links you supplied. The level of ignorance was sickening to me in some of them.

From your first link the writers conclusion had this....

You cannot have two lizards mate and have a baby monkey be born to them with brand new genes that come out of thin air. Natural selection and random mutations do not create brand new genes – not all at once and not through a gradual process over generations. This has been shown to be scientifically impossible by the scientists quoted in this article, and many others besides.

I saw this trend alot with links from people debating the downside of evolution. But come on seriously... Lizards to Monkeys!!!!?

Its like the whole process of evolution is ignored and the only information these critics cling on to, is that the impossibilty of Humans came from a nother species lets say a Monkey.

Ofcourse it is impossible....IF IT WAS INSTANT. Ofcourse it wasnt instant as it took several millenia according to evolution.

But thats my opinion, many who disproove evolution do believe in a creater: who managed to create (according to text) the universe in 6 days.

No wonder they assume that a species if it would evolve take a similar timescale.

The time taken for this sort of change to happen is so unfathunably long that there is no way to document it. But I rest at night knowing if we as a species stays around for another 10k years then we will have the definate answer.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: borntowatch

You want to debate evolution and creationism but fail already knowing about essentials a first grader can look up on the internet? How comes you don't know about the ancestors of, say, wolves, or whatever other animals?
Why don't you educate yourself? It's not secret science? This information, ie. our current status quo of knowledge is right there and accessible. (PRO TIP: Enter "creodonts" in google. But I have a feeling that real KNOWLEDGE is actually not even on your agenda.)

Also..that no transient fossils exist is a lie. I am baffled you guys repeating this over and over - this too can be looked up by anyone, you don't need a major in biology etc. for this research.

So am I to believe that a creodont is a direct ancestor to the wolf, did a creodont female give birth to a wolf?
Seems just a little unlikely, well I think it does

Do you have something else that may be in between,was a credont a canine, miacadus is more cat like than dog like.

I am baffled by the child like answer you have offered

You have offered absolutely nothing but a pious attitude.

Creodont, you serious, a child would believe that, not an intelligent person

Where is the link between your silly creodont and the wolf, your assumption is absurd and ridiculous.
Its embarrassing, prove it

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: borntowatch
...where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.

Don't hold your breath...

Darwinian evolution is nothing but a steaming pile of dung.

It's so obvious that it is clearly a massive deliberate fabrication that it's painful.

Not one single particle of scientifically provable evidence has been found in support of it.

At the sane time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

I managed to read through those links you supplied. The level of ignorance was sickening to me in some of them.

From your first link the writers conclusion had this....

You cannot have two lizards mate and have a baby monkey be born to them with brand new genes that come out of thin air. Natural selection and random mutations do not create brand new genes – not all at once and not through a gradual process over generations. This has been shown to be scientifically impossible by the scientists quoted in this article, and many others besides.

I saw this trend alot with links from people debating the downside of evolution. But come on seriously... Lizards to Monkeys!!!!?

Its like the whole process of evolution is ignored and the only information these critics cling on to, is that the impossibilty of Humans came from a nother species lets say a Monkey.

Ofcourse it is impossible....IF IT WAS INSTANT. Ofcourse it wasnt instant as it took several millenia according to evolution.

But thats my opinion, many who disproove evolution do believe in a creater: who managed to create (according to text) the universe in 6 days.

No wonder they assume that a species if it would evolve take a similar timescale.

The time taken for this sort of change to happen is so unfathunably long that there is no way to document it. But I rest at night knowing if we as a species stays around for another 10k years then we will have the definate answer.

The problem is Rhino, we have people in this very thread saying that a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wolf, seeming to say a creodont gave birth to a wolf
there is no evidence, it is as silly as saying lizards giving birth to monkeys, yet, they do.

there is no evidence but I am called child like for not believing in it

There is a way it should have been documented, fossil record, it just hasnt been found or doesnt exist

Creodonts to wolfs and you want to mock someone saying lizards to monkeys, they are both absurd.

The problem is 95% of both sides are as ignorant as can be on the topic of creation

Here is the truth

Creation is true

Science has backed that

But the populace is dumb

Which this thread proves

originally posted by: borntowatch
The problem is Rhino, we have people in this very thread saying that a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wolf, seeming to say a creodont gave birth to a wolf
there is no evidence, it is as silly as saying lizards giving birth to monkeys, yet, they do.

No, saying that a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wolf, DOES NOT say that a creodont gave birth to a wolf. That isn't what is being suggested at all and to suggest that it is, is to misrepresent the argument (strawman). My great-grandmother is a direct ancestor to me, but she didn't give birth to me.

It's funny that people can be so illogical with so much evidence. It is truly amazing. If evolution is a sham how does one explain this:
Snakes had legs

and that is only one example. Wait, don't answer all you Creationists because I know "God works in mysterious ways!"

originally posted by: Another_Nut
The problem is 95% of both sides are as ignorant as can be on the topic of creation

Here is the truth

Creation is true

Science has backed that

But the populace is dumb

Which this thread proves

Science has not backed a creator. If science had backed a creator, we wouldn't be having discussions like this. So all you gave was an opinion, NOT truth. You should learn the difference, especially if you are going to call others dumb.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes it has . It started with the big bang

For hundredsof years the kalan cosmological arguement was used to as the. Case

The big bang proved the kalan

Its now just materialism and antireligion

U are wrong and here is a list of world famous scientists that agree with me


jonathan wells phd phd 

Stephen meyer phd physics 

William lane craig phd thd the kalam cosmological argument 

Robin collins phd 

Guillermo gonzalez phd 

Jay wesley richards phd 

Michael j behe phd chemistry 


Do some reading before spouting your ignorance

a reply to: borntowatch

The problem is Rhino, we have people in this very thread saying that a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wolf, seeming to say a creodont gave birth to a wolf
there is no evidence, it is as silly as saying lizards giving birth to monkeys, yet, they do.

oh, would it be more credible coming from a burning bush? sorry we dont have those.

There have been about 65 billion modern humans, with 7+ billion alive now, so that is a lot of bodies but:

They decay very rapidly and as others have noted it depends on environmental factors some types of soils are very acidic and 'eat' the bones very fast.

The other main point is that we are unsure of when man began to mark graves. He did so only very recently, more commonly they buried the dead under the habitation with no markings at all.

Less than .00001% of the earth's surface has been excavated - that should tell you a lot....and I think I left a few '0's.

In my first Anthropology class which was also my first class in College we met in a old style cinematic theater. Professor Boggs was explaining things when he walks over to the huge white left wall (the theater held about 800 seats) took out a pencil and make a dot.

He stepped back and pointed to it.

"That ladies and gentlemen' is the amount of remains we have found of ancient man, the rest of the white wall is how many people have actually existed".

He made his point well.

By the threads writer we should be buried in human graves but we are not, any more than we are buried in bison bones - because they decay and they decay rapidly, survival of bones is a haphazard thing and finding them is a happenstance.

a reply to: Another_Nut
Your post provides irrevocable evidence that some of those calling themselves scientists are also capable of being full of crap. Therefore, in the end, it is the scientific method that sorts the wheat from the chaff. And there is no evidence for "intelligent design".

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes it has . It started with the big bang

For hundredsof years the kalan cosmological arguement was used to as the. Case

First off, it is Kalam cosmological argument. Second, the wikipedia page says that it was first proposed in 1979. Last I checked 35 years isn't "hundreds of years".

But hey, regardless of when the KCA was first proposed, the Big Bang doesn't doesn't describe the creation of the universe. So there is no way that it validates the KCA.

Its now just materialism and antireligion

U are wrong and here is a list of world famous scientists that agree with me


jonathan wells phd phd 

Stephen meyer phd physics 

William lane craig phd thd the kalam cosmological argument 

Robin collins phd 

Guillermo gonzalez phd 

Jay wesley richards phd 

Michael j behe phd chemistry 

Do some reading before spouting your ignorance

How about you first? Your post contains inaccuracies about the KCA you were talking about AS WELL as about the Big Bang. Your posse of people who agree with you include a bunch of intelligent design proponents (confirmation bias), a biologist (no credibility towards astronomy), a biochemist (also no credibility towards astronomy), THREE philosophers (no credibility towards ANY science), and the founder of the Discover Institute (his opinion is immediately invalid). Some aren't even phds (like you tried to claim). Not to mention, who cares what list of people you can pull up that agree with you? That isn't evidence. That is just an echo chamber. How about producing some actual EVIDENCE for your case instead of name dropping a bunch of loons?

YOUR ignorance is on full display as you know not what you are speaking about.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Opinion.

Why dont u guys do a little reading then come back and we will discuss the arguments put forth


O that right because yiu are antireligion

And geez that is why both sides just look stupid

Good day

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
The problem is Rhino, we have people in this very thread saying that a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wolf, seeming to say a creodont gave birth to a wolf
there is no evidence, it is as silly as saying lizards giving birth to monkeys, yet, they do.

No, saying that a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wolf, DOES NOT say that a creodont gave birth to a wolf. That isn't what is being suggested at all and to suggest that it is, is to misrepresent the argument (strawman). My great-grandmother is a direct ancestor to me, but she didn't give birth to me.

No its not your mythical strawman, your little security blanket strawman, it is how it was described and how I understood it.

Rather than acting like a petulant child, that we all do around here from time to time, why dont you explain why I may have misunderstood the explanation?
To hard?

See your ancestor is human, you will be human.
A creodont is not a canine, so where are the fossils between a creodont and a wolf, your imagination?

a reply to: Parthin

The Bible says nothing about the Earth being flat or that the Sun revolves around it:

answers.yahoo.com...

Ignoring the author's conclusion, it seems to me the only reference to the Earth's shape, which is also pretty vague, is Isaiah 40:22.

World and Earth are definitely not interchangeable, world means all events and people on Earth, which may or may not include the Earth itself, and if you understood Chinese culture, you'd know that 4 corners of the Earth is a reference to the 4 directions.

It's also interesting how many people have the names of the Bible prophets, Jesus and his disciples currently.