Summations Only

There's so much that disproves evolution, where to start? Well, start with the fact that you DON'T have the transitionals Darwin said you'd have to have. You have a few paltry wannabe transitionals, but nothing like the great number and variety Darwin knew were required.

The mere appearance of created things disproves it, so clearly the result of a Creative Intelligence, not mindless physical and chemical accidents. But you deny that too, pretend an Intelligence is not needed. Invent scenarios, Interpretations, call them Fact, say This happened, That happened, as if it really did. Silly Putty.

Then there's the Flood, which so nicely accounts for the strata and the fossils but you can just assert it doesn't and make up Likely Stories out of bits and pieces of known fact but mostly sheer imagination, say you've disproved the Flood. Yes, just say it, that's all you have to do, name it and it's true. Silly Putty.

Darwin declared that what was known to have genetic causes, i.e. microevolution or the well known variation within Species, which is the ONLY known "descent with modification" was capable of producing new Species. Simply declared it, no evidence, no proof, just rename things and there you have it. And ever since that's all that's happened, the renaming of everything. Silly Putty. Mental transformation. Word Magic.

It's all a mass delusion. Fascinating. Amazing.

No it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.

So what you are saying is: Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.

So for instance, if you found a dog with in its belly a dino, then ET is disproved?

Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it.Would that disprove the ET according to you?

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360Simpson George Gaylord is anevolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard.

Unless you believe in "hopefull monsters", evolution is gradual.

The fossil records is in agreement with creation, and totally disproves evolution.

And that is delightfull for me. As Dawkins confirms:"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. .... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229.

If Bigfoot should have left some proof that he had walked through you garden, for instance, you should have seen his footsteps in the snow, and there are no footsteps in the snow, then you know, then that is proof, that Bigfoot didn't walk through you garden.If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record. There are now hudreds of millions fossiles in musea all over the world, and guess what: No evolution.That is strong proof of no evolution.

Here's the first one:"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

To prevent whining about "taking out of context", I give you the whole chapter of the master himself, our Charles, who devoted a whole chapter of his book to the imperfections of the fossil record. "Imperfections", because it didn't agree with his theory, therefore in his eyes it was imperfect.

For those who don't feel like reading so much, the juicy parts are in yellow:CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.(extensive c&p text snipped)As everybody can see, it is one long litany about how the fossil record goes against his theory.

In the days of Darwin it was already known that the fossil record goes agains the evolution theory.

OK, it is not literally a warning.

Look above to the updated post, and see how Darwin time and again, has to say that the fossil record is imperfect, because it does not conform to his theory.

So Darwin already saw that the fossil record did NOT support his theory, put posed serious problems for it.

He goes as far as to say that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."

And therefore Darwin says that the fossil record is not perfect.

"... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions."(emphasis added) Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46

Before 500 million years ago, there was no life to speak of.

One cell life forms started according to the evo's 3.5 billion years ago, but it only really took of 500 million years ago.

And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.

Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years.

Meaning that the fossil record, as is, does NOT agree with Darwin.

What I believe is irrelevant.

Then please explain why Darwin said ten or more times that the fossil record is incomplete.If it agreed extremely strongly with him, then why keep on saying that it is imperfect??