Quote Originally Posted by funiman111

"Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science:"
Science and religon doesn't mix. One is faith and one is science. Two diffrent topics. One is based on fact the other is based on faith.
They don??t mix in their respective applications. It is true that while science is the study of the universe from a strictly natural perspective, it cannot be equal to a religion that depends on divine revelation from the creator of that universe to learn facts that science is not equipped to study.

What type of fossil are you looking for?
Fossils that show the gradual change of a species to an entirely different species, as evolution requires.

We have more evidence to support the evolution theory then evdence that goes against it.
Where is that evidence? So far what passes for evidence is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking based primarily on similarities that don??t prove evolution.

Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations
Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community ?? organisms become new species through modification over time. ??No biologist today
would think of submitting a paper entitled ??New evidence for evolution;?? it simply has not been an issue for a century? (Futuyma, 1986).

"Patricia H. Kelley
Paleontological Society President, 2001-2005"
There is a lot of debate in the scientific community. The information I am sharing reflects that debate. There have been many papers claiming new evidence for evolution. That is one of the main arguments I get all the time; the claim that the information I am sharing is outdated because of all that new information.

When the two models of origins are compared with the facts of science, evolution loses and creation wins. For example, the first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant??it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. Now if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount. You can't run out of an infinite amount. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. So it must have had a beginning.

The law of causality tells us that whatever happens is caused, so what caused the universe to begin? It is [speculatively] possible that the big bang is simply the latest in a series of explosions that destroy all evidence of what came before. But that only backs the question up a few steps to "What caused the first explosion?" It is also [speculatively] possible that the steady state theory is right, that the universe had no beginning and is creating hydrogen from nothing to maintain energy without running down. But this explanation is contrary to the evidence and the law of causality.

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of first life, either it came about by spontaneous chemical generation without intelligent intervention, or by the intervention of an intelligent being through special Creation.

Evolutionists believe that life began in a spontaneous way from nonliving chemicals by purely natural processes. Shortly after the earth was cooled enough to allow it, they tell us, the combination of simple gases like hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide reacted to form elementary amino acids, which in time developed into DNA chains and finally cells. Of course, this is said to have taken several billion years and the extra energy of the sun, volcanic activity, lightning, and cosmic rays were needed to keep the process going. Experimentation begun by Stanley Miller arid Harold Urey has attempted to reconstruct these conditions and has had success in producing various amino acids needed for life. From this, much of the scientific community has concluded that the spontaneous chemical generation of life from a pre biotic soup is the way life began.

There are, however, some very good reasons to reject this view. First, the early earth conditions necessary to produce life are just as likely to destroy it. The experimental work has shown that no oxygen can be present for the reaction to work. Also, the energy needed from the sun and cosmic radiation are damaging to the very substances produced. Under the conditions required for life to have arisen spontaneously, it is more likely that the elements would be destroyed faster than they could be produced. Even if the right chemicals could be produced, no satisfactory answer has been given for how they could have been arranged properly and been enclosed in a cell wall. This would require another set of conditions altogether.

What could explain the sudden appearance of life and also provide for the informational organization of living matter? If we apply the principle of uniformity (analogy) to the question, the only cause that we know routinely does this kind of work in the present is intelligence. The reasonable assumption is that it also required intelligence to do it in the past. Uniform experience proves this to us and, as Hume said, "As a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact" that the information inherent in living things required an intelligent cause. Since it is not possible that we are speaking of human intelligence, or even living beings in the natural sense, it had to be a supernatural intelligence. Once it is admitted that there is a radical disjunction from nothing to something at the beginning of the universe, there can be little objection to the idea of another intervention when the evidence clearly points to it.

But what of the fossil evidence that has been so widely proclaimed? Darwin recognized this as a problem as well and wrote in ??The Origin of Species,? "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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 280] In the 150 years since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History May 1977, p. 14]

Eldredge and Tattersall agree, saying:

??Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolution??non-change??has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change.? [Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 8]

What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists like Gould now support what creationists like Agassiz, Gish, and others have said all along:

??The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

??1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

??2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??" [Gould, op. cit. pp. 13-14]

The fossil evidence clearly gives a picture of mature, fully functional creatures suddenly appearing and staying very much the same. There is no real indication that one form of life transforms into a completely different form.

Now that we have new evidence about the nature of the universe, the information stored in DNA molecules, and further fossil confirmation, the words of Louis Agassiz resound even more loudly than they did when first written in 1860: "[Darwin] has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature." [Louis Agassiz, "Contribution to the Natural History of the United States" in American Journal of Science, 1860]

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.