transitional fossils (moved)

[Shadrach76]

i wanted to find out why so many christians refuse the fact that transitional fossils exist and it proves that evolution is real. it also shows that the planet is much older than 8,000 years old.

below is a short list of animal (mammal) fossils that have been found.
this is from Talkorigins.com

Carnivores

• Creodonts -- early placental mammals with minor but interestingly carnivore-like changes in the molars and premolars. Had a carnivore- like shearing zone in the teeth, though the zone moved throughout life instead of staying in particular teeth. Also had a carnivore- like bony sheet in the brain dividing cerebrum & cerebellum, details of ankle. Closely related to & possibly ancestral to carnivores. The origin of the creodonts is unclear. They probably were derived from condylarths.
• Cimolestes (late Cretaceous) -- This creodont (?) lost the last molar & then later enlarged the last upper premolar and first lower molar. (In modern carnivores, these two teeth are very enlarged to be the wickedly shearing carnassial teeth, the hallmark of carnivores.) Still unfused feet & unossified bulla. This genus is probably ancestral to two later lines of Eocene carnivores called "miacoids". Miacoids were relatively unspecialized meat-eaters that seem to have split into a "viverravid" line (with cat/civet/hyena traits) and a "miacid" line (with dog/bear/weasel traits). These two lines may possibly have arisen from these slightly different species of Cimolestes:
• Cimolestes incisus & Cimolestes cerberoides (Cretaceous) -- These are two species that lost their third molar, and may have given rise to the viverravid line of miacoids (see Hunt & Tedford, in Szalay et al., 1993).
• Cimolestes sp. (Paleocene) -- A later, as yet unnamed species that has very miacid-like teeth.
• Simpsonictis tenuis (mid-Paleocene) -- A very early viverravid. The upper carnassial was large; the lower carnassial was of variable size in different individuals.
• Paroodectes, Vulpavus (early Eocene) -- Early miacids. Enlarged carnassials now specialized for shearing. Still had unfused foot bones, short limbs, plantigrade feet, unossified bulla.

GAP: few miacoid skulls are known from the rest of the Eocene -- a real pity because for early carnivore relationships, skulls (particularly the skull floor and ear capsule) are more useful than teeth. There are some later skulls from the early Oligocene, which are already distinguishable as canids, viverrids, mustelids, & felids (a dog-like face, a cat-like face, and so on). Luckily some new well-preserved miacoid fossils have just been found in the last few years (mentioned in Szalay et al., 1993). They are still being studied and will probably clarify exactly which miacoids gave rise to which carnivores. Meanwhile, analysis of teeth has revealed at least one ancestor:

• Viverravus sicarius (mid-Eocene) -- Hunt & Tedford (in Szalay et al., 1993) think this viverravid may be the ancestral aeluroid. It has teeth & skeletal traits similar to the first known Oligocene aeluroids (undifferentiated cat/civet/hyenas).

From the Oligocene onward, the main carnivore lineages continued to diverge. First, the dog/bear/weasel line.


Dogs:

• Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
• Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
• Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).

Bears:

• Cynodictis (see above)
• Hesperocyon (see above)
• Ursavus elmensis (mid-Oligocene) -- A small, heavy doglike animal, intermediate between arctoids and bears. Still had slicing carnassials & all its premolars, but molars were becoming squarer. Later specimens of Ursavus became larger, with squarer, more bear-like, molars.
• Protursus simpsoni (Pliocene; also "Indarctos") -- Sheepdog-sized. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, shorter tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
• Ursus minimus (Pliocene) -- First little bear, with very bearlike molars, but still had the first premolars and slender canines. Shows gradual tooth changes and increase in body size as the ice age approached. Gave rise to the modern black bears (U. americanus & U. thibetanus), which haven't changed much since the Pliocene, and also smoothly evolved to the next species, U. etruscus:
• Ursus etruscus (late Pliocene) -- A larger bear, similar to our brown bear but with more primitive dentition. Molars big & square. First premolars small, and got smaller over time. Canines stouter. In Europe, gradually evolved into:
• Ursus savini (late Pleistocene, 1 Ma) -- Very similar to the brown bear. Some individuals didn't have the first premolars at all, while others had little vestigial premolars. Tendency toward domed forehead. Slowly split into a European population and an Asian population.
• U. spelaeus (late Pleistocene) -- The recently extinct giant cave bear, with a highly domed forehead. Clearly derived from the European population of U. savini, in a smooth transition. The species boundary is arbitrarily set at about 300,000 years ago.
• U. arctos (late Pleistocene) -- The brown ("grizzly") bear, clearly derived from the Asian population of U. savini about 800,000 years ago.. Spread into the Europe, & to the New World.
• U. maritimus (late Pleistocene) -- The polar bear. Very similar to a local population of brown bear, U. arctos beringianus that lived in Kamchatka about 500,000 years ago (Kurten 1964).

The transitions between each of these bear species are very well documented. For most of the transitions there are superb series of transitional specimens leading right across the species "boundaries". See Kurten (1976) for basic info on bear evolution.

i know there is a lot of data on this post, it is only a small portion of all the transitional fossils found.

 

[Washington]

Most Christians who deny evolution do so because they don't know any better. They are told evolution is false and are content to accept it because it comes from those whom they've decided to place their trust in. The others who deny it are aware of the arguments supporting evolution but deny them simply because they conflict with the creationist account of life's diversity. The facts don't mean squat if they don't agree with their Christian belief. Then there are those who, while recognizing the validity of evolution, are driven to deny it because to do so would jeopardize their businesses or position in their community.

In main, I think most deny evolution simply because they've been told it is incompatible with true Christian belief. Believers aren't prone to investigate their beliefs, and would rather let others do their thinking for them.

 

[aiki]

On just a cursory inspection of what you've posted, I have a number of questions and/or observations:

The origin of the creodonts is unclear. They probably were derived from condylarths.

This rather undercuts the idea that these fossils provide airtight evidence of new-species evolution. Words like "unclear" and "probably" do not inspire confidence in the claims being made.

This genus is probably ancestral to two later lines of Eocene carnivores

There's that word "probably" again. Sounds a lot like speculation to me...

These two lines may possibly have arisen from these slightly different species of Cimolestes

And yet again. "May possibly" is the phrase used at this point. Not the way hard evidence is usually presented...

These are two species that lost their third molar, and may have given rise to the viverravid line of miacoids

"May have", huh? I'm not feeling very convinced...

Luckily some new well-preserved miacoid fossils have just been found in the last few years (mentioned in Szalay et al., 1993). They are still being studied and will probably clarify exactly which miacoids gave rise to which carnivores.

Uh, so what has been decided on these miacoid fossils? Its been, apparently, fifteen years since they were found. Did they actually clarify anything, or are they still just in the "may have" or "probably" stage like the other fossils mentioned in your post?

Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).

Nothing in this list of fossils gives a rationale for why one fossil is considered a link to the next.

The fact is, there has never been any generation of new genetic information in all the years evolutionary scientists have been looking for it. Without this, there is no real evolution.

All of what is offered in your post as evidence of actual evolution is either the result of adaptation or natural selection, or is just educated guessing informed by a pro-evolution bias. Real, genuine evidence for molecules-to-man evolution has yet to be seen - anywhere.

Peace to you.

 

[dead2self]

Denying the existence of transitional fossils is the logical conclusion to looking at the evidence. If evolution is true, then microbes evolved into all current creatures through millions if not billions of years. During this span, millions, perhaps billions of minute mutations would need to have occured in species to go from microbe to man for instance.

What has never been found, are those millions of variants. Think about it, if we evolved, then there must be a long string of fossils that would conclusively link us to primitive life. The sheer volume of necessary changes in a species during evolution would create a fossil record that would read like an open book. Each transition would, by necessity, be so close to it's predecessor and successor that there would be no need for terms like "maybe" and "possibly" and "likely". The language would be sure and authoritative as the evidence would be clear.

Numerous specimens of millions of transitional variants are needed to prove evolution for each modern day species.

Even taking a more loose and improbable view that species undergo massive changes in spurts, then there would still need to be at least hundreds of transitonal fossil per species. And the numbers of specimens would need to be far higher due to a longer time each variant would exist.

So far, Science can claim 0 conclusive specimens of transitional species and a mere handful of speculative specimens.

As for proving the planet is more than 8000 years old, I assume you see the proof indicating 4-5 billion years of age. If so, I ask you to think about this. Can you imagine the volume of creatures than would have to have lived over 4 billion years? Where are they all? If the earth is that old, and we have fossils from all different eras, then you would not be able to plant a rosebush without unearthing a fossil. The trillions of creatures that have lived would have to have gone somewhere.

 

[WarEagle]

i wanted to find out why so many christians refuse the fact that transitional fossils exist and it proves that evolution is real. it also shows that the planet is much older than 8,000 years old.

below is a short list of animal (mammal) fossils that have been found.
this is from Talkorigins.com

Carnivores

• Creodonts -- early placental mammals with minor but interestingly carnivore-like changes in the molars and premolars. Had a carnivore- like shearing zone in the teeth, though the zone moved throughout life instead of staying in particular teeth. Also had a carnivore- like bony sheet in the brain dividing cerebrum & cerebellum, details of ankle. Closely related to & possibly ancestral to carnivores. The origin of the creodonts is unclear. They probably were derived from condylarths.
• Cimolestes (late Cretaceous) -- This creodont (?) lost the last molar & then later enlarged the last upper premolar and first lower molar. (In modern carnivores, these two teeth are very enlarged to be the wickedly shearing carnassial teeth, the hallmark of carnivores.) Still unfused feet & unossified bulla. This genus is probably ancestral to two later lines of Eocene carnivores called "miacoids". Miacoids were relatively unspecialized meat-eaters that seem to have split into a "viverravid" line (with cat/civet/hyena traits) and a "miacid" line (with dog/bear/weasel traits). These two lines may possibly have arisen from these slightly different species of Cimolestes:
• Cimolestes incisus & Cimolestes cerberoides (Cretaceous) -- These are two species that lost their third molar, and may have given rise to the viverravid line of miacoids (see Hunt & Tedford, in Szalay et al., 1993).
• Cimolestes sp. (Paleocene) -- A later, as yet unnamed species that has very miacid-like teeth.
• Simpsonictis tenuis (mid-Paleocene) -- A very early viverravid. The upper carnassial was large; the lower carnassial was of variable size in different individuals.
• Paroodectes, Vulpavus (early Eocene) -- Early miacids. Enlarged carnassials now specialized for shearing. Still had unfused foot bones, short limbs, plantigrade feet, unossified bulla.

GAP: few miacoid skulls are known from the rest of the Eocene -- a real pity because for early carnivore relationships, skulls (particularly the skull floor and ear capsule) are more useful than teeth. There are some later skulls from the early Oligocene, which are already distinguishable as canids, viverrids, mustelids, & felids (a dog-like face, a cat-like face, and so on). Luckily some new well-preserved miacoid fossils have just been found in the last few years (mentioned in Szalay et al., 1993). They are still being studied and will probably clarify exactly which miacoids gave rise to which carnivores. Meanwhile, analysis of teeth has revealed at least one ancestor:

• Viverravus sicarius (mid-Eocene) -- Hunt & Tedford (in Szalay et al., 1993) think this viverravid may be the ancestral aeluroid. It has teeth & skeletal traits similar to the first known Oligocene aeluroids (undifferentiated cat/civet/hyenas).

From the Oligocene onward, the main carnivore lineages continued to diverge. First, the dog/bear/weasel line.



Dogs:

• Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
• Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
• Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).

Bears:

• Cynodictis (see above)
• Hesperocyon (see above)
• Ursavus elmensis (mid-Oligocene) -- A small, heavy doglike animal, intermediate between arctoids and bears. Still had slicing carnassials & all its premolars, but molars were becoming squarer. Later specimens of Ursavus became larger, with squarer, more bear-like, molars.
• Protursus simpsoni (Pliocene; also "Indarctos") -- Sheepdog-sized. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, shorter tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
• Ursus minimus (Pliocene) -- First little bear, with very bearlike molars, but still had the first premolars and slender canines. Shows gradual tooth changes and increase in body size as the ice age approached. Gave rise to the modern black bears (U. americanus & U. thibetanus), which haven't changed much since the Pliocene, and also smoothly evolved to the next species, U. etruscus:
• Ursus etruscus (late Pliocene) -- A larger bear, similar to our brown bear but with more primitive dentition. Molars big & square. First premolars small, and got smaller over time. Canines stouter. In Europe, gradually evolved into:
• Ursus savini (late Pleistocene, 1 Ma) -- Very similar to the brown bear. Some individuals didn't have the first premolars at all, while others had little vestigial premolars. Tendency toward domed forehead. Slowly split into a European population and an Asian population.
• U. spelaeus (late Pleistocene) -- The recently extinct giant cave bear, with a highly domed forehead. Clearly derived from the European population of U. savini, in a smooth transition. The species boundary is arbitrarily set at about 300,000 years ago.
• U. arctos (late Pleistocene) -- The brown ("grizzly") bear, clearly derived from the Asian population of U. savini about 800,000 years ago.. Spread into the Europe, & to the New World.
• U. maritimus (late Pleistocene) -- The polar bear. Very similar to a local population of brown bear, U. arctos beringianus that lived in Kamchatka about 500,000 years ago (Kurten 1964).

The transitions between each of these bear species are very well documented. For most of the transitions there are superb series of transitional specimens leading right across the species "boundaries". See Kurten (1976) for basic info on bear evolution.

i know there is a lot of data on this post, it is only a small portion of all the transitional fossils found.

That's a pretty impressive list. Could you do me a favor and help me cull that list down a little bit by telling me which one of these fossils show evidence of one species evolving into another species?

 

[drich0150]

There is a tremendous amount of faith involved in the belief of "evolution" More so than most Christians can muster. In christianity there are absolutes. Well defined lines of right and wrong, and a documented history that goes back thousands of years, and over that period of time little has changed.

In the religion of "evolution" your prophet Darwin would scarcely recognize what his doctrine has become. The rules and "Facts" seem to change every few years or so when a new discovery has been found, or someone decides to publish something new. This for Christians who have built their faith on solid ground, may have trouble excepting something as unstable as Science Where known facts are out numbered by thesis and theory.. Hence the need for a "TREMENDOUS faith."

This may seem like foolishness to some, but if you look at what science is pushing (Evolution) as what it truly is, a Theory based religion. Then what you have left is a group of fanatics "Bent" of conversion Non believers to their doctrine. You have to admit there is a strong connection to the way most of your community works when you come across an unbeliever and the way, say a modern day contemporary religious nut does. no matter what faith he subscribes to.

One on One there is a Need to save the lost. Often times in the beginning there is some sort of statement that shows the unbelievers need to seek out there faith. When this fails there can be: heckling/name calling, repeated attempts to convert, a constant showing of facts no matter how obscure they may seem to the non believer, there is a parade of wisdom, reward and a promise of acceptance, and a life more full filled.

On a mass scale you will see an attempt to wipe out the competing religion, by out lawing all other forms of public religious displays, Making it difficult for non believers to operate in any arena out side of his church or home. Often times before a religion hits critical mass they attempt to assimilate the other religion rituals, institutions, or holidays, and change the meaning of them. (Much like christianity did with Christmas, Halloween and easter) Now you see a foundational intuition like marriage, being augmented to suit the "new doctrine."

Yes there is alot of similarities between us, more than most of us (Both sides) would like to admit. I'm hoping you (the OP) can see what you are doing here on a "Christian" forum is basically the same when we attempt to seek out and save the lost. Although I can't help but feel a sense of self entitlement or a selfrightousness to this (your attempt) of "Out reach." (heckling/name calling)
Not to say all Christians reach out for the right reasons either, but my point is that if you in fact are involved in a religious form of expression, then why not be apart of one that has a true foundation. Why not be apart of a system absolutes. To be able to find answers and forgiveness at the same time. Yes it is a hard life, you will be made fun of, and some of your friends may not like you any more, but the one thing we do have to offer is contentment..

True Contentment, peace, joy among other "fruits" can be yours if your willing to believe in Jesus.. and really it doesn't take 1/2 the faith your expending right now to believe what you do. If you are interested then let me know. I'll be glad to help anyway I can.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

Kent Hovind offered $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution (upped from $10,000 in 1990).

The money is still in his account.

Evolutionists have rejected it but I would like to know what they would consider a true offer for proof of evolution would be?

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

Kent Hovind offered $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution (upped from $10,000 in 1990).

The money is still in his account.

In true evolutionist fashion, instead of producing anything, all they have done is try to find ways round doing so.

 

[salida]

Do you believe that life came from nothing? Or that intellegent design occurred?

If there were transitional fossils - the animals would be alive today and on earth. You don't see any transitions on earth living.

The earth isn't over 10,000 years old-this is mathematically impossible. If the earth were just 41,000 years old there would be approximately 10 to the 29th power at least concerning number of animals and humans.

There is overwhelming evidence that goes towards intellectual design and the biblical account of creation versus darwinism. More and more secular scientists are going towards intellect design. I know better in not to believe darwinism - I'm a scientist.

You may want to read as a start www.reasons.org and www.creationworldview.org. The first website is from a PhD in Chemistry and the latter site is from a scientist who was an evolutionist but is now a creationist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is a tremendous amount of faith involved in the belief of "evolution" More so than most Christians can muster. In christianity there are absolutes. Well defined lines of right and wrong, and a documented history that goes back thousands of years, and over that period of time little has changed.

In the religion of "evolution" your prophet Darwin would scarcely recognize what his doctrine has become. The rules and "Facts" seem to change every few years or so when a new discovery has been found, or someone decides to publish something new. This for Christians who have built their faith on solid ground, may have trouble excepting something as unstable as Science Where known facts are out numbered by thesis and theory.. Hence the need for a "TREMENDOUS faith."

This may seem like foolishness to some, but if you look at what science is pushing (Evolution) as what it truly is, a Theory based religion. Then what you have left is a group of fanatics "Bent" of conversion Non believers to their doctrine. You have to admit there is a strong connection to the way most of your community works when you come across an unbeliever and the way, say a modern day contemporary religious nut does. no matter what faith he subscribes to.

One on One there is a Need to save the lost. Often times in the beginning there is some sort of statement that shows the unbelievers need to seek out there faith. When this fails there can be: heckling/name calling, repeated attempts to convert, a constant showing of facts no matter how obscure they may seem to the non believer, there is a parade of wisdom, reward and a promise of acceptance, and a life more full filled.

On a mass scale you will see an attempt to wipe out the competing religion, by out lawing all other forms of public religious displays, Making it difficult for non believers to operate in any arena out side of his church or home. Often times before a religion hits critical mass they attempt to assimilate the other religion rituals, institutions, or holidays, and change the meaning of them. (Much like christianity did with Christmas, Halloween and easter) Now you see a foundational intuition like marriage, being augmented to suit the "new doctrine."

Yes there is alot of similarities between us, more than most of us (Both sides) would like to admit. I'm hoping you (the OP) can see what you are doing here on a "Christian" forum is basically the same when we attempt to seek out and save the lost. Although I can't help but feel a sense of self entitlement or a selfrightousness to this (your attempt) of "Out reach." (heckling/name calling)
Not to say all Christians reach out for the right reasons either, but my point is that if you in fact are involved in a religious form of expression, then why not be apart of one that has a true foundation. Why not be apart of a system absolutes. To be able to find answers and forgiveness at the same time. Yes it is a hard life, you will be made fun of, and some of your friends may not like you any more, but the one thing we do have to offer is contentment..

True Contentment, peace, joy among other "fruits" can be yours if your willing to believe in Jesus.. and really it doesn't take 1/2 the faith your expending right now to believe what you do. If you are interested then let me know. I'll be glad to help anyway I can.

Right on!

 

[Stinker]

I must admit that I did not understand how one species kept changing to the point where it transformed into a different species than what it started out as. The living transitional form would be only one of it's kind. This is why it has taken so long to find the ones we do have. This evidence does force us to interpret the Bible story of creation in a non-literal way. It also gives tremendous impact to Daniel's title of God as being the Ancient of Days.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

 

[orestis]

Edit:This is my first post and linking is not allowed. To see the examples go to "Ice Core" in Wikipedia. A picture of a core with seasonal layers and time periods of other cores are noted there.


The products in individual layers of some ice cores have been correlated with recorded events, i.e. volcanoes, historical temperature, etc.

Now, the scientific method, a thought process that leads to conclusions from observable data, says that we can go back 800,000 years in the ice core listed above. The scientific method that dated the ice core is the same method that produced the computer that you are reading this post on. It produced the next airplane you are going to fly in, the telephone you are going to use today.

Why is it that the method is accepted as being valid in all of those conveniences we use every day but but is dismissed by creationists where the age of the earth is concerned?

 

[orestis]

No answers?

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

The products in individual layers of some ice cores have been correlated with recorded events, i.e. volcanoes, historical temperature, etc.

Now, the scientific method, a thought process that leads to conclusions from observable data, says that we can go back 800,000 years in the ice core listed above.

Your method is flawed, work by Michael Oard (accessable on the Andswers in Genesis website & elsewhere) shows that in the post-flood ice-age there would have been daily layering, conditions were different then to now so you are wrong to just assume otherwise.

 

[orestis]

I just read what Michael Oard wrote.

Don't get on an airplane that he designed.

Good luck and good-by.

 

[Markus6]

i wanted to find out why so many christians refuse the fact that transitional fossils exist and it proves that evolution is real. it also shows that the planet is much older than 8,000 years old.

I just want to let you know that not all christians deny that fact (though I think you already knew that). As to why Christians do - to start there is a lot of anti-evolution sentiment around in the church. Many Christians are taught that evolution says that God doesn't exist or that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. With such a negative view of the theory it is no wonder many don't accept it.

Now there are some very intelligent Christians who deny evolution, and asking why is an interesting question, one I don't have the answer too. However, part of it is that the evidence for evolution is by no means complete (and never will be). The extent of the evidence for evolution is often over stated by the theory's adherents.

Believers aren't prone to investigate their beliefs, and would rather let others do their thinking for them.

That's a horrible generalisation and one I find quite offensive.

.
What has never been found, are those millions of variants. Think about it, if we evolved, then there must be a long string of fossils that would conclusively link us to primitive life. The sheer volume of necessary changes in a species during evolution would create a fossil record that would read like an open book. Each transition would, by necessity, be so close to it's predecessor and successor that there would be no need for terms like "maybe" and "possibly" and "likely". The language would be sure and authoritative as the evidence would be clear.

Numerous specimens of millions of transitional variants are needed to prove evolution for each modern day species.

Even taking a more loose and improbable view that species undergo massive changes in spurts, then there would still need to be at least hundreds of transitonal fossil per species. And the numbers of specimens would need to be far higher due to a longer time each variant would exist.

So far, Science can claim 0 conclusive specimens of transitional species and a mere handful of speculative specimens.

As for proving the planet is more than 8000 years old, I assume you see the proof indicating 4-5 billion years of age. If so, I ask you to think about this. Can you imagine the volume of creatures than would have to have lived over 4 billion years? Where are they all? If the earth is that old, and we have fossils from all different eras, then you would not be able to plant a rosebush without unearthing a fossil. The trillions of creatures that have lived would have to have gone somewhere.

You need to bear in mind that fossilisation does not always occur. Most of the time the dead organism will just decompose fully. The sum total of the fossils we have found (or will ever find) is a very small fraction of the total organisms that have ever lived.

 

[Markus6]

That's a pretty impressive list. Could you do me a favor and help me cull that list down a little bit by telling me which one of these fossils show evidence of one species evolving into another species?

I'm not sure how one fossil would show evidence of one species evolving into another. We typically need three to do this - a supposed ancestor, the supposed descendent and the apparant transitional. If the transitional shows characteristics of both the ancestor and descendent we can say it is proof of descent.

In the religion of "evolution" your prophet Darwin would scarcely recognize what his doctrine has become. The rules and "Facts" seem to change every few years or so when a new discovery has been found, or someone decides to publish something new.

Yes, that is how science works. As a way to gather knowledge it is not like theology which relies on divine revelation (which is then unchanging) but gradual revealing of what is already there. Science is slowly describing the physical universe more accurately. We need to remember that but it does not make science wrong.

It is true Darwin would probably not recognise his theory. Mendelian inheritance, chromosone theory, DNA, and a whole lot of fossils are new discoveries since he was alive. However, all support his theory.

Kent Hovind offered $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution (upped from $10,000 in 1990).

The money is still in his account.

Evolutionists have rejected it but I would like to know what they would consider a true offer for proof of evolution would be?

Is the offer still on now Kent is in prison for tax offences?

 

[Dr. Unk]

Kent Hovind offered $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution (upped from $10,000 in 1990).

The money is still in his account.

Evolutionists have rejected it but I would like to know what they would consider a true offer for proof of evolution would be?

Go to kent-hovind.com and click on "$250,000 Challenge".

 

[Dr. Unk]

What has never been found, are those millions of variants. Think about it, if we evolved, then there must be a long string of fossils that would conclusively link us to primitive life.

Finding fossils is not as easy as it seems. There may be millions of fossils out there, but the Earth's crust is too vast. However, evolution can predict where a fossil may be e.g. tiktaalik, a transitional form with fins/limbs was predicted to be found somewhere in northern Canada.
Also, even if we found no fossils at all, there is still other evidence supporting evolution.

In the religion of "evolution" your prophet Darwin would scarcely recognize what his doctrine has become.

Evolution passes no criterion to qualify as a religion and it's only creationists who think that people who accept evolution worship Darwin.