evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by shaunybaby
As far as I know, yes. What point are you trying to make? It's like you're just making up questions for the sake of it.

My point is there are many proposed interpretations to explain the redshift and velocity is only one of them. Isn't it risky to assume it's due to velocity?

Darkside,

What do you propose the redshift indicates?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Darkside,

What do you propose the redshift indicates?

One proposal is that light loses energy or "scatters" the further it travels so it appears to be "stretched" when we receive it. It would also correspond to observation (the further the object the higher the redshift would be, which is the case)

That's only one possible explanation.

reply to post by Xephyr


just wat i was going to say

Originally posted by newkids123

Originally posted by Slicky1313
all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts......

.....Darwin himself said he made the whole thing up and repented on his death bed and became a christian. show me the evidence guys, I dont see any

Evolution taught in school wasn't suppose to be taken seriously

EDITED: By the Society for Prevention of Excessive Quoting

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Gazrok]

Darwins deathbed repent is most definitely a lie.With minor research online or through books you will easily see it is false.Its sad that many christians still think its true.

where the hell is there evidence that god really exsist? there is none some old half cooked old guy could have written that in his spare time so if you have actual proof that god is real e-mail me
[email protected]

reply to post by Slicky1313


dear slicky1313,
YOU DONKEY. ARE YOU THICK!?!?! this is not complicated stuff. if you prefer to be believe that a naked dude and girl popped out of the sky and some big old hairy man waved his finger and whoooosh... sky, wind, water, animals pop into existence, then hey, its up to you, but dont be so ignorant.

reply to post by Tembisa


No! You've got it all wrong!

First off, God wanted the universe, so it existed. Then he wanted some people, so he made Adam. Then using a bit from Adam he made Eve. Then, for some reason, he made an evil snake. And he made fruit they shouldn't eat. Then, because his creations (Adam and Eve) were so flawed they listened to the evil snake God made, and ate God's fruit, and God had a problem with that, so he created all kinds of stuff that the descendants of Adam and Eve have to suffer through. Then, thousands of years later (after some genocides here, rapes there, etc.) he sent himself back in some kind of ridiculous amateur-dramatics dinner theatre to die. Why he felt compelled to act up to his creations in such a way (instead of just absolving us of the sins he created in the first place, he tortured himself like some emo kid with bad grades).

Or something like that. I've read better stories in Scientology literature, and that was written by a drunk, drugged recluse.

Evolutionists and anthropologists claim that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years. Like the dinosaurs presumably have, there should have been uncountable fossils.

By their time-scale, it is supposed that there should have been four billion Stone Age skeletons, and certainly countless buried artifacts. There should be multiple millions of them in fact, given the enormous time-frame they claim, yet only a few thousand bones and fragments have ever been found and these are far too few to fit the Stone Age theory and the thousands of years it was supposed to have taken place. Why worry about a “missing link” when the entire chain is missing!? One skeletal remains of a dinosaur is not proof of a link! Nearly half a million fossils have been discovered and categorized, but not even not even one single set of transitional fossils (like reptiles becoming birds) of one single species of animal or mammal, has ever been found in all of human history. They can not find what has never existed.

An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science’s axiom that out of nothing comes nothing. Cause and effect demands some Causer prior to nothingness. Chance, to Kant, is an excuse for ignorance. Chance is not even a noun, it can do nothing of itself, it has no power to effect, it is not an x-factor, as many are convinced. And chance is not composed of physical matter. Regardless of those facts, to those who believe in evolution or carry a disbelief of Creationism or Intelligent Design, chance was the x-factor in everything coming into existence. Otherwise, they must admit that they just don’t know how matter, and thus life, came into existence. They simply don’t know and can only placate theories (subjective). We should expect science to deal only with facts (objective), approaching things rationally and logically. They have not. Evolutions remains in the textbooks. Believing in something does not make it true. Try and find a real tooth fairy.

Another consideration is that it is impossible for matter to create itself, spontaneously, out of nothing. Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn’t explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA (which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of evolution.

The general approach for those who don’t believe in a Creator, the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come “cause” before an effect can occur. And a cause logically demand a Causer…and a Creator. Chance is powerless. It can not make something happen or create something from nothing. It is a non-being.

I met an old intermediate school classmate far from our hometowns in a big city. I thought, that’s incredible. What are the chances of that? Lot’s of zeros I am sure, but I did not go to this city to meet him. He did not come to the same city to meet me. It was pure coincidence or by mere chance. But the chance did not make me go to this city. I did. But I had already existed before having this chance meeting. I caused myself to do so. Same for him. Chance is a possibility quotient, a mathematical equation. But you have to have numbers to begin with or you can’t even write an equation. Chance is powerless to create or to cause something to happen. That leaves only one possibility. The cause must be from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. There is no other way in which to explain the reason for all matter…the universe and all life forms.

Further more, in Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, he believed that fossil evidence to prove his theory of gradual progression from one species into another, would eventually be found. It has been 150 years and no such evidence exists. Where is the fossil evidence of lizards transitioning into birds? This I would like to see, since their lung functions are so radically different, it could not have happened gradually nor rapidly. No fossil transitions equal no proof. There is not even one single example of this anywhere on earth.

Darwin and most scientists at the time, believed that cells were simple, living organisms, with only a few parts. This was thought to enable easy mutation or change into different kinds of cells. Cells are extremely complex, with over one trillion different functions and processes. More complex than the New York City Metro Transit’s transportation system (including the computers that help run it). Scientists claim they know all of the key elements that were present when life began on earth, but the fact is that when they bring these elements and conditions under a similar environment, (even voltage equal to lightning, so often claimed as the catalyst), they have not once created life or a life form.

100 hundred million fossils have been examined, 500,000 have been catagorized...and not so much as ONE fossil record of a progression into a different species are to be found. Instead, what has been found and widely known as the Cambrian Explosion (of nearly every species) shows life forms showing up, all at once!. It isn’t called an explosion because it happened slowly. It is astonishingly instantaneous; almost like a rapid creation event. It is the glaring lack of evidence and use of words "likely, may have, perhaps, might have, etc. in this THEORY's wording that it is more like scientific hope-so than know-so. It takes an astoningly greater amount of faith to believe we and everything came from nothing or no one.

In conclusion, let me remind the reader that a cellular mutation is not an improvement of the organism. As cells age, it is like the original copy of the cell has a copy made of itself. Then, this copy is copied. That copy is likewise copied, until it becomes much less like the original and has lost much of it’s original cellular integrity. It is not mutating, it is decaying. Entropic change moves into a more disorderly, chaotic state, not an
improved one. Simply put, it is a dispersal of it’s mechanical energy, not a reorganizing or improving of the specie’s cellular integrity from one type into another, superior specie. It is a smoothing out process, not a building up process.

If evolution is working at the cellular level, why are diseases and cancers still escaliting? I thought there was supposed to be an increasing longevity in species?!

Darwin tried to find and realized there was not sufficient fossil evidence in his day to prove his theory of gradual progression, that is from one species into another. And even his own colleagues noted flaws in his naturalistic speculation. He predicted they would eventually be found. They have not.

Sir Arthur Keith, a noted anthropologist and devout evolutionist, admits that ”Evolution is unproved and un-provable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable?“. Hundreds of millions of fossils have been studied, categorized and yet not one transitional set of fossils, of even one species has ever been found.

Can intellectuals believe in God? Absolutely! Many intellectuals believe in God. As a matter of fact, your intellect has very little to do with your belief in God. Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God. Why? Because they have studied the heavens. It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "This must have all been created and organized."

It is also no coincidence that an increasing number of scientists are withdrawing their support of the theory of evolution. Scientists may see this as an embarrassment many years from now like their predecessors who were once convinced that the earth was flat. Frankly, fossil records simply do not support any credible evidence for evolution. Why continue looking for what does not exist when a simple reading of Romans 1:20 explains it all? “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Here is Darwin’s Legacy:

James Darwin, who was only trained in the ministry and stole much of the written material his father had collected, then based everything upon a theory which he knew little about. Even so, he acknowledged life required a Creator (a proper noun in his book) and it was the Origin of the Species, not the Origin of Life he wrote about. Many of the supposed missing-links were from Darwin thugs who had murdered New Zealand aborigines since their skulls fit the pattern they were looking for. The very ones displayed in the Smithsonian Institution are those of the murdered pygmies. How far will scientists go? Apparently far enough to extort evidence to fit a theory, even to the point of killing innocent people. All the missing links are still missing. If they haven’t been found, when and why not?! I believe it is because they are not there.

Doesn't it take millions of years for a dinosaur bone to become a fossil?
Absolutely not! Just because something is "fossilized" does not mean that it is millions (or even thousands) of years old. When the conditions and materials are right, a bone can become filled with minerals fairly quickly. The main ingredients are:

Quick burial (like a giant worldwide flood or volcanic ash)
Water, in the right amounts (sufficient pressures for compression)
Suitable minerals (under seas/oceans, volcanic ash, etc.)

Conditions necessary for fossilization to occur during a catastrophic, widespread or worldwide floods are absolutely ideal for "fossilizing" millions of animals and plants. Researchers have found that chicken bones and wood can be replaced with minerals in just five to ten years. A big dinosaur bone might take hundreds of years to completely mineralize. It all depends on the burial conditions over the years. In fact, fossils have already formed under the ashes of the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption.

Many dinosaur remains are still not completely turned in to rock. More than half of the fossil is still original bone, not stone! Some even have chemicals from the living animals (proteins and amino acids which were not thought to be able to survive millions of years)! Some fish fossils still have a fishy smell when first uncovered. Some of the plants buried during the Flood are not fossilized either. In New Jersey, large amounts of wood from trees that were growing at the same time as dinosaurs can be found in the dirt (Cretaceous clay).

They are preserved, but not turned to stone at all. In England, fragile plant hairs and tiny details of the plant's cells can be seen. The plants are not turned into rock. They are just flattened and blackened. These types of discoveries are not surprising but the rule and not the exception.

Evolutionists and anthropologists claim that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years. Like the dinosaurs presumably have, there should have been uncountable fossils.

Actually, no one can explicitly claim any amount of time for the Stone Age to last.

The date range of this period is ambiguous, disputed, and variable according to the region in question. While it is possible to speak of a general 'stone age' period for the whole of humanity, some groups never developed metal-smelting technology, so remained in a 'stone age' until they encountered technologically developed cultures. However, in general, it is believed that this period began somewhere around 3 million years ago, starting with the first hominid tool-making in Africa. Most australopithecines probably did not use stone tools (although they seem to be invented by Paranthropus robustus) but the study of their remains still falls within the remit of archaeologists studying the period. Due to the prevalence of stone artefacts, which are frequently the only remains which still exist, lithic analysis is a major, and specialised, form of archaeological investigation for the period. This involves the measurement of the stone tools to determine their typology, function and the technology involved. This frequently involves an analysis of the lithic reduction of the raw materials, examining how the artefacts were actually made. This can also be examined through experimental archaeology, by attempting to create replica tools. This is done by flintknappers who reduce flintstone to a flint tool.

If the PDF file I found with your whole first paragraph has its sources cited correctly, then a lot of this information comes from the 1960's, which leads me to believe that it's probably incorrect or off by now. The whole "there should be more fossils" story doesn't add up, either. As the source I quoted above says, not everyone was at the same level of advancement during that time. Therefor, not everyone would bury their people. Also, how do we know that they buried everyone? Maybe they only buried in special circumstances. If someone died on their own they wouldn't be buried. The list for reasons to not find everyone as fossils is extensive, and what you (well, the article you plagiarized) says is misleading.

Also, fossils are formed in a very specific ways. Just burying someone will not preserve them for 50,000 years. We know bears and many wild animals exist, we can go to a zoo and look at them. Good luck finding their bones in the wild that reflect their population, though.

The strength and durability of bone stems from the unique protein-mineral bond present in skeletal formation. Consequently, changes to skeletal remains, known as bone diagenesis, occur at a substantially slower rate than stages of soft-tissue breakdown. As the protein-mineral bond weakens after death, however, the organic protein begins to leach away, leaving behind only the mineral composition. Unlike soft-tissue decomposition, which is influenced mainly by temperature and oxygen levels, the process of bone breakdown is more highly dependent on soil type and pH, along with presence of groundwater. However, temperature can be a contributing factor, as higher temperature leads the protein in bones to break down more rapidly. If buried, remains decay faster in acidic-based soils rather than alkaline. Bones left in areas of high moisture content also decay at a faster rate. The water leaches out skeletal minerals, which corrodes the bone, and leads to bone disintegration.[3]

So, you see, there are many reasons why burying someone will actually increase their rate of bone degeneration after death.

Nearly half a million fossils have been discovered and categorized, but not even not even one single set of transitional fossils (like reptiles becoming birds) of one single species of animal or mammal, has ever been found in all of human history. They can not find what has never existed.

Actually, this is wrong. There are many transitional fossils, and they're rather easy to find information about if you just search for them. Here is a sample list of some of the transitional fossils already discovered. I don't know where you're getting your info, but it's old and... wrong. Here's a good read on what transitional fossils actually are. And you're correct, we can't find what won't exist. We won't find a duck with the head of a reptile, because that isn't how evolution works, plain and simple. Evolution is an incredibly small series of steps that take place over a long period of time, not a jump that happens in a single day.

An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science’s axiom that out of nothing comes nothing.

What does this mean, exactly? How do you justify these claims? Evolution doesn't claim that nothing comes from nothing. It claims that, given plenty of time(millions and billions of years), through the evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.), you end up with something different than you started with.

Evolution has been known of for a long time, and we've used it to our advantage quite a bit. We've cultivated and domesticated many species of plants to now look nothing like how they used to. Dogs are a popular example. Many dog looks very different from each other, but they all have a common ancestor. If you stand a great dane and a chihuahua beside each other, you would sincerely doubt they are the same species, but they are.

The domesticated forms of maize, known as sweet corn and field corn, have been modified by people so much that they can no longer reproduce in the wild. Sheep have been modified to grow fluffy coats, suitable for shearing, from an original wild animal that had only a light, stubbly coat. Wheat and barley grow many edible seeds that are huge in comparison to their ancestors. Wild dogs have been modified to everything from the miniature chihuaha to the great dane. This process is known as "evolution by artificial selection."

Artificial selection can make enormus changes over short periods of time. Natural selection can do the same, but over a longer period of time since there is no one guiding it except the environment. If you have a species that lives in one area, and they start to spread out, over time that species will change to adapt to its environment because of natural selection. If one environment is colder than another, the members of that species that have a higher resistance to cold (whether it be because they have slightly thicker coats of fur/feathers/etc.) or just a higher tolerance, they will survive, while the others that are less resistant will die. The members who survive and procreate will spread their cold resistance genes (heredity), and eventually will become the prevalent species in that area. Given enough time they will eventually accumulate enough changes that they must be considered a different species, they can no longer procreate with their original species because they are so genetically different. The finches on the chain of islands in the Galapagos are an excellent example.

Natural selection is also not the only mechanism that can be involved in evolution. There others, such as: Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutation, neutral evolution, and speciation.

As for how life got here, there are a lot of ways it could have. It could have arrived on the back of a meteorite, formed naturally through the chemicals that were abundant in early earth history, or through many other theories that I don't care to go through right now, but can be researched in your own leisure time.

Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn’t explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA (which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Evolution has to do with evolution, and that's it. There is much new science available on the how the universe was created, and it'd be nice if you educated yourself on them before trying to teach others about science. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean you can attach religion to it. People used to think that god created lightning and thunder, but we know that is obviously not how it happens today. Bit by bit, the realm of god is falling to the knowledge of man because were finding out what it really is. That's what science is about. Discovering new things, going in to the unknown and mapping it out. That's why science gets revised, no one can be perfect and get it right the first time. Unlike religious tales that try to remain the same (despite the fact that many people like to change them slightly to be able to reinterpret them), science changes and flows so it becomes more accurate over time. Don't expect something you read 30 years ago to be accurate in modern terms.

Also, You can't talk about the life of one animal and compare its cellular degeneration against the lifespan of an entire species. If what your saying is true, we would all be born old people the same age as our parents. Obviously, not true. I already went over natural selection, and if your still misunderstand it, you can read this website, or this website.

I met an old intermediate school classmate far from our hometowns in a big city. I thought, that’s incredible. What are the chances of that? Lot’s of zeros I am sure, but I did not go to this city to meet him. He did not come to the same city to meet me. It was pure coincidence or by mere chance. But the chance did not make me go to this city. I did. But I had already existed before having this chance meeting. I caused myself to do so. Same for him. Chance is a possibility quotient, a mathematical equation. But you have to have numbers to begin with or you can’t even write an equation. Chance is powerless to create or to cause something to happen. That leaves only one possibility. The cause must be from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. There is no other way in which to explain the reason for all matter…the universe and all life forms.

You must really educate yourself on the Big Bang. Here is a short excerpt:

"Before" is a concept inherently linked to our concept of linear time. That is, we think of ourselves moving on a line from the past to the future and "before" refers to a past-ward direction from a specific point on that line. Given, however, that the direction we label "past" is not necessarily the same direction labeled as "past" in some other part of the universe, The universe does not have an absolute time line, only a local one.

The second key fact that must be understood is that matter and energy are interdependent with spacetime. Without matter and energy, there can be no spacetime. Without spacetime, there is nowhere for matter to be. The reason for this is beyond the scope of this article.

The third key fact is that the current best theory is that the Big Bang was triggered by quantum fluctuations, which are the spontaneous creation and subsequent destruction of quantum level pieces of matter. Again, the reason why this happens is beyond the scope of this article.

Now, given that spacetime is dependent upon the existence of matter and energy, the quantum fluctuation that was responsible for triggering the Big Bang is also responsible for bringing spacetime into existence. More to the point of this discussion and in everyday terms, it brought time into existence. Thus, it is nonsensical to talk of a time "before the Big Bang" because it is equivalent to talking of a time "before time" or asking "What is North of the North Pole ?"

I would also suggest reading up on quantum fluctuations and CP Violation. To greatly simplify them, quantum fluctuations happen randomly and seemingly without causation. Take a point in space and observe it on the quantum level. You will see pairs of virtual particles flash into and out of existence. Coming from nothing, then destroying themselves and not existing. It is the nature of the universe to have random energy fluctuations on the quantum level of existence that momentarily break the law of conservation, allowing the creation and evaporation of energy.

Darwin and most scientists at the time, believed that cells were simple, living organisms, with only a few parts. This was thought to enable easy mutation or change into different kinds of cells. Cells are extremely complex, with over one trillion different functions and processes. More complex than the New York City Metro Transit’s transportation system (including the computers that help run it). Scientists claim they know all of the key elements that were present when life began on earth, but the fact is that when they bring these elements and conditions under a similar environment, (even voltage equal to lightning, so often claimed as the catalyst), they have not once created life or a life form.

Actually, I provided an article earlier that demonstrates that it is possible, and links to many other ways that it is possible for life to arrive.

Instead, what has been found and widely known as the Cambrian Explosion (of nearly every species) shows life forms showing up, all at once!. It isn’t called an explosion because it happened slowly. It is astonishingly instantaneous; almost like a rapid creation event. It is the glaring lack of evidence and use of words "likely, may have, perhaps, might have, etc. in this THEORY's wording that it is more like scientific hope-so than know-so. It takes an astoningly greater amount of faith to believe we and everything came from nothing or no one.

If you consider "all at once" to be over 70 or 80 million years, then I guess your idea of quick/rapid/instananeous is quite different than mine. Considering that we can't time travel, it is hard to prove any one theory right, but it's better than saying "it just happened". Science explores the unknown and defines it the best it can. When new or better evidence is discovered, it's out with the old and in with the new. Scientific hope-so is better than nothing at all, and paves the way for discoveries of what really happened. If the readers want to educate themselves on some of the theories, they can go here and here.

If evolution is working at the cellular level, why are diseases and cancers still escaliting? I thought there was supposed to be an increasing longevity in species?!

Guess what? Cancers, diseases, etc., evolve as well. Huh, who would have thunk it? In fact, that's why we get things like "super flu's" and other very successful viruses/colds/etc. And evolution doesn't take place in a living being, like some sort of weird Incredible Hulk reaction. It happens during the creation of the creature when the sperm and egg meet, combine, and start to encode genetic information. If the outcome is more viable than its predecessor, then it has a higher chance to live and have offspring, and eventually become the predominate form of that species.

Can intellectuals believe in God? Absolutely! Many intellectuals believe in God. As a matter of fact, your intellect has very little to do with your belief in God. Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God. Why? Because they have studied the heavens. It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "This must have all been created and organized."

Can you link to the scientific poll that shows 90% of astronomers believe in god? Also, a belief in god(s) isn't a belief in the creation myth perpetrated by many religions.

If you want to go the route of intelligence and belief in religion, then the polls you find will demonstrate an inverse nature. Here are some of the polls taken that deal with religion and intelligence.

It is also no coincidence that an increasing number of scientists are withdrawing their support of the theory of evolution.

Again, do you have articles to link to to prove these statements? I have an article that links to other articles that demonstrates that what you're saying isn't exactly true, and is dishonest.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

James Darwin, who was only trained in the ministry and stole much of the written material his father had collected, then based everything upon a theory which he knew little about. Even so, he acknowledged life required a Creator (a proper noun in his book) and it was the Origin of the Species, not the Origin of Life he wrote about. Many of the supposed missing-links were from Darwin thugs who had murdered New Zealand aborigines since their skulls fit the pattern they were looking for. The very ones displayed in the Smithsonian Institution are those of the murdered pygmies. How far will scientists go? Apparently far enough to extort evidence to fit a theory, even to the point of killing innocent people. All the missing links are still missing. If they haven’t been found, when and why not?! I believe it is because they are not there.

Just because the man believed in a creator doesn't disprove his own theory. Why would he write a book and spend his life developing a theory that he doesn't believe is true? It doesn't make sense. In fact, he denies that he was an Atheist by description, but rather an Agnostic:

In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.

Darwin 1887, p. 304.

I would suggest reading this wikipedia article to find out what an Agnostic is, and the varying levels therein

Time for a Darwin quote of my own.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

Many dinosaur remains are still not completely turned in to rock. More than half of the fossil is still original bone, not stone! Some even have chemicals from the living animals (proteins and amino acids which were not thought to be able to survive millions of years)! Some fish fossils still have a fishy smell when first uncovered. Some of the plants buried during the Flood are not fossilized either. In New Jersey, large amounts of wood from trees that were growing at the same time as dinosaurs can be found in the dirt (Cretaceous clay).

They are preserved, but not turned to stone at all. In England, fragile plant hairs and tiny details of the plant's cells can be seen. The plants are not turned into rock. They are just flattened and blackened. These types of discoveries are not surprising but the rule and not the exception.

First of all, "The Flood" didn't happen. If it did there would be fossils present pretty much wherever you looked because everything would have been buried in sediment. The fact is, fossils only come from fossil sites, and you can't find fossils anywhere you go. Very specific things need to happen to create a fossil, and the chances you will find a fossil by digging on your front yard are slim to none. Fossils aren't present in the same way that would happen if "The Flood" were real.

Secondly, the "original bone" to which you are referring (I'll do the reference for you since you don't want to take the time to do so, it's here) has not been witnessed by any reputable palaeontologist. John Horner and Phil Currie are not reputable upstanding members of the palaeontological world. No other paleontologist have been able to see if what they found was truly dinosaur bones, or if they were of other origin. Perhaps if they let someone do some tests, they could find out.

If you want to talk about Mary Schweitzer, then forget about it. While science generally agrees with her, it is a simple fact that the method of preservation isn't precisely known. That's the thing with science, as I said earlier. A discovery is made, we define it to understand it the best we can, and we modify theories so they are more appropriate.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

Source

There have been discoveries of unfossilized mammoth and mastodon (two different animals) bones because they are encased in ice, which doesn't allow for a lot of cellular degeneration to happen. It is recorded that the people who found these "unfossilized dinosaur bones" were digging around in the permafrost, so it is highly likely that they uncovered mastodon or mammoth bones. The claims they made in 1998 have not been validated yet. Source.

The blackened and flattened fossils you refer to are known as Psuedofossils, and are not actually fossils at all.

High quality fossils can occur through Permineralization.

Permineralization occurs after burial, as the empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater and the minerals precipitate from the groundwater, thus occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. This is a form of diagenesis.

[edit on 24-8-20

[edit on 24-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I read in science magaizne of how they took a shell from a snail still alive and carbon dated it and found the shell was 26K years old, even though it wasnt actually that old.

I read that one too and jokingly thought to myself that the only way that could be possible is if the snail name was 'Duncan McCleod of the clan McCleod.

I'm really surprised that they still bother with carbon dating after that one.