Macro-evolutionits will…

1. claim that there are millions of transitional forms

2. admit there are absolutely no transitional fossils available for proof

3. discover that evidence concurs, there really are not any transitional fossils

4. say that this “evolution” happens so slowly that we will never see it…(this makes some of them feel better)

5. others claim that billions of years have past

6. and yet still they cannot find the transitional fossils from say, the last million years…(realizing this they…)

a. some will say erosion…sure erosion is a decent excuse, but they also say evolution is always happening so eventually one should find a no-eroded fossil or perhaps a living creature whom is in the process of “evolution”

b. others dis-claim everything they have already claimed and place all their emphasis on punctuated evolution…but to do this one must discredit everything they just learned (with something else that has no evidence)….

I want to see the fossils…

I have a problem with the evolution’s theory and I think any logical thinking scientist or evolutionist should have a problem with it too… the lack of evidence in fossils of “slow” evolution?

Where are all these “transitional” fossils? Without them no one can see this “slow evolution.”

If this evolution was really happening even at a slow pace, the fossils would, in fact, back it up. But we do not have any fossil record to back up these small changes. The changes are imagined. Evolutionists keep telling themselves that the changes are occurring “at such a small pace that it is not noticeable,” this seems said only to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Because even if the changes occurred at such a small pace OVER Millions or Billions of years , there would, in fact, be some kind of fossil record. There should be MILLIONS of years worth of fossils….which is NOT the case!

I will admit that fossils by themselves cannot prove or deny evolution. But the evidence leans towards denying it. It is a matter of interpretation. My question is how do you interpret the evidence to seem like there is millions of years worth of fossils, when there is not? It is a simple question.

I will admit there have been some fossils that are good finds and might be “transitional fossils,” but the number of these great finds is not even in double digits…five fossils does not prove anything. In fact it makes the case for itself that these five fossils or so are more likely to be unique, seperate extinct species and not transitional fossils at all.

150 years of energetic and well funded world-wide searching for fossils to ‘prove’ evolution have failed to reveal more than a tiny handful of disputed possible intermediate forms. If Darwin was right about gradual changes happening over millions of years, millions and millions of ‘missing links’ would have come to light. The fact that each Archaeopteryx, Tiktalik, Flores man is triumphantly announced as ‘THE’ missing link only underlines the lack of the MILLIONS of intermediate missing links which Darwin’s hypothesis of gradual change over millions of years requires to sustain it. What about all the hominid, ape-man, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man and other fossils? Where are they?

Second question:
If we found a fossil, dated at 37.5 million years ago, with features of both organisms A and B, and called it AB, the young earth creationist would then say “There are no transitional life forms between A and AB, or between AB and B.” So another simple question…where is the transitional fossils? They are non-existent.

Other interesting stuff:

What does not honest, good scientist do with this: unfossilized dinosaur bones with soft material found in the earth? From a non-Christian

Darwinists say, “We continually revise our theories and welcome critical examination and evaluation.” They may revise aspects of their theories, but because evolution is so incredibly malleable, no amount of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. But how much contrary evidence must accumulate before a theory is discarded?

Today evolution survives, not so much as a theory of science, but as a philosophical necessity. Good science is always tentative and self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution.