History Repeats Itself

[Kingpin]

There is plenty evidence in favor of macroevolution, including the fossil record, though it is to be expected that there will be gaps-the necessary for a fossil to form are very specific and need to be held for thousands if not millions of years. And differentiating it from microevolution is pointless, because it's the exact same process.

The creationist objections to macroevolution are intriguing to me. This selective and sometimes downright nitpicky skepticism is fascinating. It's the same with religious people who can perfectly point out every logical flaw of a deity, provided that it isn't their own.

I understand why people hold these beliefs, but it is rather uncanny how much they can ignore in favor of them. But I guess in the end, emotions are stronger than rational thought.

I did not quote or pull from Answers in Genesis at all.  I have only showed peer reviewed scientific articles showing the enormous improbability of random mutations and natural selection being able to create the diversity and lineage that the evolutionary model presents.  Someone here mentioned we have clear evidence of us coming Australopithecus, but that is just simply not true.

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987)

One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure."

Evolution is presented as fact, yes, but there is not a consensus.  There is an entire site dedicated to scientists who wish to sign their scientific dissent from the darwinian model of evolution.  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and the 22 page list (updated and released June 2015) of scientists who publicly denounce the Darwinian model can be viewed here:  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

This is bold because as soon as they do this they are essentially written off as intellectuals in the scientific community.  Look at atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel for example:  http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/w...-darwinism

Evolution as presented for the origin of all species has enormous gaps and holes and scientists fill those gaps with assumptions and presuppositions that it must be a natural process but it is far from "proven" or "consensus", irregardless of religious beliefs, but based on pure science.

This does NOT mean that creation theory can be proven or must be true. I'm not saying that. Yes it is what I believe, but I'm pointing out what I see the problem evolution theory has.