Wise Words From Richard Dawkins
By: Ray Comfort
Here now is a believer of the theory, who, when pressed to produce evidence of even one species to species transitional form in the fossil record, falls back on the predictable tactic of evolutionists by saying that he’s not an expert, “ I am not a paleontologist, so take this post with a grain of salt. I recommend that you contact a paleontologist who can explain to you what a transitional form actually is, and how many of them we actually have. I might remind you that the overwhelming consensus is that we have quite a few.”
No, we don’t have overwhelming evidence for transitional forms. Look at this quote from Science Digest: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin .” That’s not true either. They have no “physical evidence” for human evolution. None. After searching and studying quotes from paleontologists, I am convinced that those who spout evolution are guilty of paleontological quackery. Most of them would put Disney imagineers out of work. They have built a lucrative industry out of their imaginations that rivals televangelism. What’s more, their wide-eyed supporters have the same simpleminded mentality that keeps money-hungry preachers in business. For years I have listened to the poker-faced evolutionists’ bluffing that they had a “few” transitional forms or “inside a single coffin.” But after research for Evolution, the Fairytale for Grownups I know that they have nothing in their hand. They are bankrupt. There are no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record. None. The following quote is from Indiana University’s website (italics added): “According to the theory of evolution, the descent with modification road to humans (or any other group, for that matter) is paved with a sequence of transitional fossils . . . fortunately, some members of some of those groups were fossilized, and a few of those are found from time to time, giving us the hit-or-miss, very spotty record of fossils which has led us to hypothesize [imagine] that picture of a branched tree of being which we call evolution .”
The problem is that the species to species transitional forms in the fossil record aren’t “few,” “hit or miss,” or “very spotty.” They don’t exist. There aren’t any, except in the imaginations of those who represent this pseudoscience called “Evolution.” Here is another sincere believer providing me with “evidence”: “The fact remains that at least evolution HAS physical evidence (and reams of it) to debate over . . . Whether you’re willing to accept the evidence we’re able to produce in copious amounts is irrelevant in light of the fact that it does exists here and now and we can all see and argue over it. And there’s not just one piece of evidence… there’s millions of years worth buried under our feet. ‘Cambrian Explosion’ period in prehistory that was found in British Columbia in the early 1900’s has surely got to be enough to convince anyone (Google it if you’re curious). Read that book Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould that I mentioned in another post for all the evidence you could ever want . . . then you can visit any number of natural history museums to see it with your own eyes. What religious apologist could ever offer that kind of varied and immediate evidence? Happy hunting!”
All the Cambrian Explosion [a specific time in history] does is prove that creation came into being as though Someone suddenly created it. It disproves evolution: “And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229).
I asked for one piece of evidence of a species to species transitional form in the fossil record, and the best I was given was advice to visit museums and wished “happy hunting.” Why should I have to do the hunting? All I want is one example. That will shut my mouth.
Charles Darwin said, “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ” Well, have they found them? David M. Raup, Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago said, “… by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much .” Newsweek magazine said, “The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated .” Evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould admitted, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology .” Lord Solly Zuckerman, MA, MD, DSc (Anatomy) added, “If man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record.” Here are some more experts on the subject of evolution: “I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation.” Nobel Prize-winner Sir Ernst Chain. “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Professor Louis Bounoure . “I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy.” Charles Darwin. “Darwinists are afraid. They are hiding something.” Ben Stein, Actor. “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.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission). “Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael J. Denton, Molecular Biologist. “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philosopher Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo Research The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17
Again, there is no “extreme rarity” of species to species transitional forms. They don’t exist. I think that believers in the theory of evolution should take notice of the wise words of well-known evolutionist, Richard Dawkins: “And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”
From, Evolution . . . the Fairytale For Grown Ups (due to be published Feb. 2008).
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Oh dear. I’m not quite sure where to start.
First off, why is it that most churches insist on more than Christ? Why do you have to believe in more than just Christ in order to be a Christian? If I believe in an eternal God who sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins so that we may be saved, why isn’t that enough? Why must I also believe that evolution is a lie that the scientists invented to fool us? What if the church preached that slavery is perfectly acceptable (the Bible says so, you know, and they indeed did preach it)? Would I have to believe that as well? Really, as far as I’m concerned, evolution is a non-issue for Christians.
Second, why lie? The claim that scientists nowadays say that we descended directly from apes is an outright lie. That’s simply not true: scientists say that we and the apes share a common ancestor. Check the Wikipedia article on human evolution or do a Google search.
Third, if you quote someone, it is polite to show where you got the quote so that others may look it up and check. But Mr. Comfort can’t be bothered to do that. Odds are, he didn’t even check the quotes himself: the quotes have been circulated for years, even after they were showed to be out of context or even outright fabrications. Here’s some information on those quotes: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/P.html
Finally, evolution is not a religion, it’s a scientific theory. Despite what Mr. Comfort claims, it’s main purpose is to further scientific research, not to get people to send their money to “evolution preachers” (I believe he probably had Mr. Dawkin in mind, and, the last time I checked, he had no donation page. Yes, he does sell books, but buying them is not a moral obligation like tithing in Christian churches.)
Most biologists support evolution, and a very, very small minority do not. How did they come to that conclusion? Are they required to believe it? No, simply they see that evolution is a very useful tool for explaining the origins of life and — what’s even better — it allows us to make accurate predictions. The theory works. That’s all that is required.
Number one, nobody is saying that it is a requirement of any Christian to believe in anything but Christ. I just think if you’re going to believe in Christ, you would hopefully believe in the holy word of god as infallible truth, and that would hopefully lead you to believe in what the bible teaches. The bible teaches that the world was created in six literal days and that man named the animals. That would mean that evolution is not something the bible-believing Christian should believe.
Secondly, the bible does not teach that slavery is acceptable. Please quote me scripture If I am wrong, but if you read it in context it simply states how slaves should go about their work and how masters should treat their slaves. Slavery in biblical times could mean anything from actually slavery to a payment of time when one could not afford any other way of payment. You show me where it says that slavery is okay, and then we can talk
http://creativecounterpart.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/does-the-bible-condone-slavery/
Dear, there are LOADS of fossils that represent transitional species. Look it up.
In short, there is a ton of irrefutable evidence to support evolution. There is no science or evidence AT ALL to support creationism, only a belief system.
It is one thing to believe in God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — as I do — but it is quite another to take the words in the Bible (written by men, many unknown to us, by the way) as 100% factual and leave your brain at the door.
If you must be so literal, I suppose you also need to put down the shrimp cocktail, bacon and fig jam — since consuming them is an “abomination” according to the Bible. Do you wear clothing of mixed fabrics, also an abomination? Or do you pick and choose what you abide by?
Be a Christian, but THINK.
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”
Leviticus 25:44
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44;&version=31;
“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”
- Robert Carroll (Paleontologist and Professor of Zoology McGill University)
“There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved”- A. J. Marshall (PHD Anthropology Harvard University)
Can one species procreate with a different species? I don’t think so, but I’m no scientist. If that is correct, for evolution to have occurred implies that one species gave birth to another species with which the original species cannot procreate. Or is this were Darwin’s intermediary species closes the gap? A species that can procreate with not only the old species, but a future species? Am I getting this right? Doesn’t that violate the laws or idea of a species as a whole? If there were various species that could procreate, would we not be surrounded by innumerable trasitional forms?
As for mixing creationism with evolution, there can only be one. Many peple claim to be Christian and to embrace evolution. The two are contradictory. There may be those that believe in God and Christ, but to read the book of Genesis and to dismiss it, then you are choosing which parts of the Word to believe and which to not believe. The Bible must be taken as a whole. You do not get to choose the parts you like, call them true, and choose the parts you do not like and call them untrue.
As for the approval of slavery in the Bible, you’re mixing your idea of the slavery that occurred with our African brothers in America and the idea of slavery that relates to payment of debt or corporal punishment in the day in which this verse was written (Leviticus 25:44). As you said, look it up (http://bible.cc/leviticus/25-44.htm). Get a deeper meaning. Don’t throw around scripture in improper context to justify that there are parts of the Bible that you don’t agree with.
Fossils are certainly documented but after 120 years of digging & study – NONE have been found that suggest a species transformed into another. ZERO. Some are thought to be immediately when they’re found but are soon scientifically rationalized as being something else (i.e. Lucy).
If evolution were true, as Darwin himself proclaimed, there would be innumerable examples of transitional forms to be found. So man must’ve evolved without leaving a trace of physical evidence.(???)
Some scientists still believe evolution happened & will only admit to the extreme rarity (read non-existent) of transitional fossils.
I guess if you’re not doing the research yourself, it’s who you believe.
I’ve found that more often than not, it seems evolutionists and anti-creationists are not so because of the validity of evolutionary theory as much as they’re against the notion of a god they’ll ultimately be accountable to. Well-known author, philospher, & drug abusing drunkard, Christopher Hitchens, is a great example of this.
The truth is that once evolution is disected piece by piece, evolution cannot stand on its own.