Does the study of Fossil really overtune Evolution???? Athiests, what if there is God???

What if there is God???



living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they

evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless

living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical

structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost

complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution.

The Earth is filled with millions-of-years-old fossils of present-day living things. A very large part of these have been unearthed, and everywhere that paleontologists excavate and study, still they find fossil specimens of modern living things with all their flawless attributes. Kept in countries' museums are millions-of-years-old spiders, ants, flies, spiders, scorpions, crabs, frogs and many other creatures, extinct and otherwise.

Does the study of Fossil really overtune Evolution???? Athiests, what if there is God???
Oh, there is a God. No doubt about it. Do you really believe that the world jjust "came" into existence? Surely no one is that dense. Look around you, man. Someone had His hand on the world before you were even born. Who do think it was?
Reply:Quran never changed since 5th century and never will be because millions memorized it.



Lets look at science in Quran



Expansion of the Universe in Quran!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Report It
Reply:Layers in the atmosphere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Report It
Reply:Three stages of the baby in the womb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Report It
Reply:The function of mountains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Report It
Reply:The Fingerprints (science just discover that fingerprints are unique for every person in universe but it's describe in Quran since 5th century)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Report It
Reply:That's the reason alot of Scientists convert to Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Report It
Reply:. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].”13 Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”

Regarding your geologic forces theory, I’ll use your last answer to me below, that’s a convenient answer to make a point. But according to the scientific community as quoted above, they disagree with you, they have enough fossil information.

In 2004, National Geographic described fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor/” Do the remaining one in a thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “Little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

Scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged.

So evolutionists (not all) theorized a different view than gradual evolution because of the fossil evidence. As The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes.”16

Some adherents to this theory have called the process “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into something else). This is just the opposite of the theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition” among those who hold to the traditional view.17

Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between different types of living things on earth today, still persist.
Reply:Who do you think created the concept of evolution?
Reply:You know what's sad? there really isn't a single true sentence in that entire rant. making things up and denying reality isn't science, you know?
Reply:I won't get into all I disagree with in your question but I will ask one of my one. Why is evolution a myth but God is not?
Reply:I'm an atheist because all evidence points that direction, not because I randomly choose to be an atheist. If the evidence were otherwise, I would be a theist.
Reply:If you really know why evolution is wrong, the following website is for you.



http://nobelprize.org/
Reply:You just don't understand evolution.



Read dawkins' the god delusion, it seems like you need it.



If there is a god, i'll say how come you only wanted stupid ignorant people to believe you existed?
Reply:I try to avoid getting my education by watching You Tube and perhaps you should too.

And to answer your Q, No.
Reply:Odd, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.



1) living fossils. If they truly are living fossils, then this shows a very long life span which in turn would have very long time spans between reproductive periods. Thus, evolution is at a much slower pace than it would be for say, insects? It would make sense that they look a lot like their ancestors, since they would most likely be like grandparents to them at best.



2) "extinct and otherwise" Would this not make sense for prehistoric beings to be extinct? Their species adapted and evolved, eliminating the old species in place of an inproved version.



Evolution is a scientific fact. I cannot even fathom where you get your arguments against it.
Reply:just a bunch or evolution rhetoric
Reply:%26gt;Does the study of Fossil really overtune Evolution????



No, it does not. In fact, its existence is part of what makes evolution the best theory for the origin of current life forms.



%26gt;The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms.



It most certainly does. Every life form, if it has ancestors different from itself and descendants different from itself, is an 'intermediate form' in evolutionary terms. There is no special 'intermediateness' that makes life forms intermediate or not, life forms can be both complete in themselves and still intermediate when related to other life forms that lived before and after them.



%26gt;Countless

living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical

structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago.



Such life forms are called 'living fossils'. Not all life forms are of this type; humans are one example of a life form which has changed significantly within the past few million years.
Reply:You can tell them that and tell them that, but they are unable to wrap their poor little minds around it. It is like trying to describe an elephant to a blind man. YBIC See, on this, even a Mulsim and a follower of Jesus the Christ can agree.
Reply:No it doesn't.

There is no god. plain and simple



So.. 10 points for me? Or do you not value truth?
Reply:Many things have remained unchanged, but that corresponds perfectly with evolution... That's the thing, evolution doesn't mandate change, it just provides methods in which it can occur, as beneficial mutations only happen every now and then, and speciation even less frequently because isolation is necisary for speciation. If the same supply of genes is available to all of a species (i.e. no isolation) then change can be rather limited.



Further, would you deny that we can actively see evolution in progress? We see new bacteria developing and affecting people every year, there are bacteria that have decendants 10 years ago that are structurally nothing like bacteria now.



Also, if there's a God, and he disapproves of caring about the evidence "he put here to fool us", and intends for us to believe in a book written by men rather than what is readily viewable in our lives, and he ordains that those that don't believe in this book regardless or whether they lived good life, were kind, and helped man kind, burn in hell... Well then if there is a God he isn't worthy of belief and I'd rather rot in hell with people that spent their lives helping people rather than sit in heaven with arrogant people who were self-assured in their belief in God and speant their lives doing nothing of merit. After all, how could heaven be a happy place knowing that some of the greatest, kindest, and most charitible people ever to live are suffering every moment you're supposed to be enjoying?...
Reply:Yes, the earth is filled with things millions of years old. That alone and the fossils that you love to talk about here dispute your lord gods bible that the earth was created in 10 days and that adam and eve were the first inhabitants of earth. A religion based on lies and story telling. How original
Reply:Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear.

tc
Reply:Funny how 97% of the scientific community (composed of men and women far smarter than you and I) will disagree with your lies.
Reply:You are wrong on all counts. Just because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Reply:Nothing overturns evolution. If there is a God, my bad, but I doubt it.
Reply:Two wrongs don't make a right. Saying incorrect things poorly doesn't make them facts.
Reply:so what .. they are fuked then .. they dint belive in god so god will point and laugh in their faces saying HA ***** I DO EXIST and he ll cast them into the river of fire where lucifer is waiting to get some fresh meet ....
Reply:So-called "living fossils" are not identical to similar species that existed millions of years ago. They too have evolved, but have changed at a slower rate than many other types of animals. Any paleontologist can tell a miocene shark species from a modern shark species at a glance. Still, terrestrial vertebrates have changed so drastically in the same time period that were refer to sharks as "living fossils". meaning that todays's species are quite similar to the species of long ago. But they are still distinct species which have evolved.



The fossil record shows innumerable examples of intermediate forms. Just go to one of the many fossil pits in Florida and you will find intermediate forms literally by the ton - the fossil shells of mollusks 100,000 years old, clearly similar to the species now living in Florida, but clearly not the same species. These are obviously the recent ancestors of the species living there now. There will also be some fossil forms in the mix that look so much like extant species that they might well be considered the same. And so, they are considered the same. These have not yet evolved enough to be considered separate species in such a short time frame. Yet others have evolved much faster in the same time frame. It's right there in front of your face, if you go to one of these open fossil "mines". Nothing remains the same. There is no species alive on earth today that was alive one million years ago. Therefore there is no such thing as a million year old fossil of a present day living thing. You are badly misinformed. Even the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab that are alive today are not identical to their ancient ancestors. Yet we call them "living fossils" for the reasons mentioned above.



The insects trapped in amber are easily identifiable to family, but not one of them is alive today. And, not one species alive today has ever been found in amber. Why do you suppose that is?? Why concentrate so much on the relatively few forms that have evolved slowly? Why not address the clearly demonstrated fact that there were absolutely no large mammals on earth at the time of the dinosaurs? They appeared subsequently. Where did they come from? Creation was finished millions of years earlier. Did God start creating again? If not, where did mammals come from? We also know as indisputable fact that there were no terrestrial vertebrates of any kind on earth several million years before the dinosaurs. There are hundreds of thousands of fish fossils from that time, but not a single reptile or mammal. Why? Where did these land animals later come from? My Bible says that after the initial Creation, God rested. That means He stopped creating, does it not? And yet, we know that whole classes of animals appeared on earth long after that. How do you explain this?

.