Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.
Here are the facts in case you are interest. The following is a very condensed version of the 14 facts posted in my Original Post. This condensed version posted below can be read in it's entirety at...
evolution-facts.orgThe Best Examples of Evolution have Proven Worthless
In all the other "evidences of evolution" which we have examined in this book, we have not found one indication of any transition across species.
But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record, there are TWO times when one species evolved into another. These are considered very important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now in some detail:
Eohippus and the Horse Series
1 - THE HORSE SERIES
30 DIFFERENT HORSES—
In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.
"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."
—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.
FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—
When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."
1 - Different animals in each series.
In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!
2 - Imaginary, not real.
The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.
3 - Number of rib bones
. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types
of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata.
The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse.
The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)
"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus), is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."
—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.
7 - Horse series exists only in museums.
A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.
8 - Each one distinct from others.
There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.
The Horse Exhibit claims that the evolution of the horse occurred over a period of 55 million years. Apparently they have at least, approximately 20 different horses over a 55 million year period. This is unheard of in Archeology but what is really unheard of is the selection of fossilized bones. That there are only 30 different horses over 55 million years is way too selective. If they have that many horses, then why not just one example of intermediate species between each horse? To say that each horse is an intermediate species to the next is not gradual evolution over millions of years or just plain logical. You just don't go from dog to horse in 30 simple steps. Why then would that require 55 million years?
9 - Bottom found at the top.
Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.
10 - Gaps below as well as above.
Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.
In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.
12 - Never found in consecutive strata.
Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.
13 - Heavily keyed to size.
The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.
14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.
In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.A STUDY IN CONFUSION—
In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:
"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.Scientists protest such foolishness:
"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."
—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . .
Just to make this part even more clear, some of the early horses are more complicated in design and function then the simpler and more modern day horses. This would suggest a de-evolutionary process and not an evolutionary one.
As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."
—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)
"Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’
"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.
". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."
—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—
*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:
"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.NOT A HORSE AT ALL—
(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.
"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."
—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.
"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."
—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—
*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."
—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.
"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."
—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—
A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Earlier, *Simpson said this:
"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—
The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:
"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.OTHER SERIES—
(*#4/2 Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or publicized.
These are the Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series, the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera Series, and the Bivalve Series.
When one views the charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each—gives the impression that they are all "horse-like." All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.
Then we turn to the Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated evolutionist on the non-existent "Elephant Series."
"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "
—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.
The Ceratopsian Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the head while two of them have horns in different locations.
The last two, the Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general appearance.
On one hand, it appears that some of these series are simply different animals with similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply dogs. Scientists recognize them as belonging to a single species.
If all these men of science agree that evolution is not a real science, then why is it being taught in schools and universities as factual science?
Why don't publications such as National Geographic do an expose on such lies and reveal them for what they are, hoaxes perpetrated by charlatans who only desire to line their pockets with money rather than speaking the truth?
Could publications like National Geographic be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
Why are documentaries still done on evolution and dinosaurs in particular? Could it all be part of a system of entertaining the public and feeding them what they want to believe?
Could we be so ignorant, simply because we choose to be?
Could this explain the title of my Article, "An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance."?
I must now express a theory of my own. Man is such a proud creature that to admit fallibility is beyond his grasp of possibility. He would rather argue to the death an erroneous assumption than to admit that he was wrong; That he believed in a lie. And in a worse case scenario where evidence is presented to support the truth that Man is wrong he will defend his position to the point of cursing and screaming and kicking, insulting the presenter of the errors of his ways and telling him that he is either Stupid for not believing the lie or is just plain ignorant of the truth and that the presenter of the truth is the big bad "Troll" who is doing wrong in Conquer Club forums by posting such contrary points of views.
That's my theory anyway!
Yes; I did post the cover of National Geographic to illustrate the depth of the deception. That it goes as far as even television and Radio with every documentary that is made and every topic of debate exercised. But it was you who posted the larger photo displaying that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Simply put, I had to respond to that.
As to whether or not you or anyone else post of even reads this, it's a win/win situation no matter how you look at it. If I have silence and even anger some with the truth to the point where they say to me, I don't talk to trolls and so I am not posting any more comments then that means that I won my argument with the truth.
But if on the other hand I am some how able to awaken people's consciousness, even if just a little, even if they don't respond out of shame and disgust for having been duped into believing in a lie in the first place, even so then, I would have served a much greater purpose that you or even I myself could imagine. The advancement of the human condition. So it's all win/win babe.
That's the way that I see it anyway. And as for the truly ignorant, let them continue to wallow in their ignorance. I just thank my God that I am not one of them.
As a man lives, so also shall he die.
BTW: I am not trying to bury anything. If anything is true, it's the fact that my comments get buried under a host of negative erroneous words by others. Why would you even make that assumption? But it's all gravy, as it is all written and documented facts on this thread.