Evolution

Point 1:No Fossil EvidencePremise : If and only if evolution is true, then we should see hundreds of transitional fossilFact: There are only a handful of dubious transitional fossilsConclusion: The Hypothesis of Evolution is (likely) false.Justification for premise 1: There are literally millions of fossils. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if evolution has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years there would at least a several hundred transitional forms that have been documentingJustification for Fact: The world has been looking for "missing links" for the past 200 years. Honest scientists admit that there are no legitimate missing links in the fossil record. Others in desperation forge transitional fossils in order to prove Evolution and and become famous. A good example of a desperate attempt to find a missing link is Nebraska Man. In a 1922 issue of Illustrated London News, an article was published featuring a picture of Nebraska man drawn by Amedee Forestier saying the, "reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius." Imaginative was correct because this man and his mate were concocted from a single tooth. It turns out that the tooth was that of a pig.In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid"[4]. One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.[6]Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favor of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" [5].Here is a quote from an honest scientist who fully believes in evolution, but admits that there are no valid transitional fossils. Dr Patterson who had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution[2] admitted "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument" . When Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland"s book Darwin"s Enigma:"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... I will lay it on the line"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."[3]Conclusion: Since there is not one "watertight" transitional fossils out of the tens of millions of fossils that have been found,it would be logical to conclude that evolution did not take place. Point 2: No Observed Change in Kinds (macro evolution)Definition of a kind:"a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category"[1]Premise: If and only if macro evolution is true, then we should see new kinds forming.Fact: Has never been observed. Conclusion: The Hypothesis of Evolution is (likely) false.Justification for the premise: If all living things have a common ancestor then there must have been millions of new kinds of animals that arose over the past billion years. We should be observing new kinds evolving every 1000 years or so. Or at least see species of animals in transition.Justification for fact:The only time macro evolution has been documented was in The Princess and the Frog, but the magic formula in that case was a kiss not millions of years. The examples you gave were micro evolution. If you wanted to prove macro evolution you would have to show me a Drosophila paulistorum that produced an elephantmacro evolution micro evolution Point 3 :Micro Evolution"This is about microevolution, which some Creationists do accept." All creationist accept micro evolution because it is scientific. We don't accept the hypothesis of evolution because it involves macro evolution which is not scientific. Definition of scientific: "regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science" Micro evolution fits in this category while macro evolution doesn't because it doesn't conform to any principles of science.[1] Examples: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,Tidal Friction,Genetics...etc Conclusion:My conclusion goes like this:-Premise 1: If macro evolution happens, then evolution is possible.-Premise 2. If we see transitional fossils documenting change in the fossil record leading up to the creatures today, then evolution is likely responsible for life on Earth today.-Fact 1: Macro evolution has never been observed -Fact 2: No "watertight" evidence of macro evolution has been found in the fossil record-Conclusion: Evolution is not supported by scientific date, therefore the Hypothesis of Evolution belongs in the category of pseudoscience.Irrelevant Side Note-I hope you don't mind me using your format. I did used your format because it makes the rebuttal easier to read.- Also bird were made be dinosaurs according to Genesis which goes against the evolutionary hypothesis that birds came from dinosaurs. Science has been wrong before but the bible hasn't. For example science use to teach the earth was flat even though Job 26:10 says the earth is round. Also science taught that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth"s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing"( Job 26:7). In short theistic evolution is not plausible unless you say that that Genesis was mistranslated. Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] Patterson, C., Evolution, The British Museum of Master Books, Natural History, London,1978.[3] Sunderland, L., Darwin"s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101"102, 1998. Patterson"s letter was written in 1979.[4] Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 [5] Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927[6] http://en.wikipedia.org... -Also used google images