posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:17 PM
I agree with the poster WHOLE-Heatedly. It's amazing how it's easy to believe man came from ONE being one APE. Yet it's hard for people to
believe (who include Atheists, but for some reason who are hypo-critical in that they still celebrate RELIGIOUS holidays, but that a rant for another
time.) Yet no one can believe that we all came from two people?
Doesn't anyone know there are GAPS upon endless GAPS in the way species changed? There would be one species then all of a sudden BAM a different one
WITH NO FOSSIL evidence to support the fact of slow mutation, or evolution.
100% of the drawings done of ape man are FALSE. I am being brave to say this as what did we have, a piece of nose?? Then an artist came up with a
rendition of the rest of the head and called this our pre-ancestor. Bet you all didn't know that, that 100% the ape-man drawings are ALL ARTIST
RENDITIONS BASED ON ONE PIECE OF BONE."
Evolution is A THEORY and was started by Darwin and Gollupigus(SP) Island, from looking at a bird with one beak longer then the other.. EVEN DARWIN
HIMSELF disproved his THEORY.
Here is a snippet from an article:
"However, fossil evidence fails completely to tell us that life evolved the way scientists claim. The facts, the proofs, are missing.
The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He
disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”
Decades passed. But the evidence refused to be forthcoming. Later, A. C. Seward admitted that the fossil record “tells us nothing of the origin of
life.” And to this very day, the situation is the same. True, at times there are sensational announcements by journalists hungry for a headline that
the creation of life in the laboratory is imminent. But even if that happened, it would only show that there had to be a Creator, that life does not
come into existence by itself.
The fact is that the fossil record remains totally silent about the supposed evolution of microscopic life. A college textbook acknowledges: “We
still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution.”
A “Burst” of Complex Life Forms
The fossil record’s first testimony that carries any conviction is in what geologists call the Cambrian layers of rock. Before that time the record
of the rocks shows unaltered beds for untold ages. But in those older layers, any supposed fossils are rare. Indeed, their validity is hotly disputed
among scientists themselves.
But with the Cambrian rocks, fossils burst forth in sudden profusion, in wide variety, highly specialized and very complex. Silent for so long, for
most of the record in fact, their star witness, the fossil record, suddenly becomes a chatterbox! I have to ask myself: “Did it have laryngitis all
that time previously, or was it that it had nothing to tell?” I think of the words of Simpson, who refers to this sudden “explosion” of myriads
of fossils as “this major mystery of the history of life.”
But let us even grant evolutionists the “spontaneous generation” of life that they cannot establish in the fossil record, nor duplicate in
laboratories. Grant them that first speck of life that they cannot trace. Grant them also the fantastic advances from that first microscopic life to
the sudden bursting forth of thousands upon thousands of highly specialized forms of life in the Cambrian rocks. With all that granted to them, can
they look at the fossil record and at least get some answers on how later forms of life supposedly evolved?
When land plants came into being, the fossil record was not silent but was chattering about them. Yet, the fossil record reveals absolutely no
“primitive” types as their ancestors. As one authority suggested, evolution believers must simply believe that those supposed ancestors had