back into the water? We're not done yet! They claim to be scientists. Do they have any idea about what is involved in going from a water-breathing
creature with gills to a land creature with a fully developed circulatory system? Where are the many transitions required to make such major
physiological changes? What about the change from fins to legs? Are they aware of the complex bones, joints, and circulatory structures required for
fins to change into legs? Where are those transitions in the fossil record? We won't even go into the inadequacy of the tiny pelvis to give birth to a
creature the size of a baby whale. NG states, "Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000
frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (page 25). If you examine everything else they offer as evidence, you'll find it's all flawed - without
exception. So where is their "overwhelming evidence"? It doesn't exist!
We do agree, however, with NG that, "no-one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith" (page 8). We believe it
should be accepted as a fanciful fairytale, complete with artistic drawings and whimsical assumptions. Calling evolution a "theory" gives it much
more credit than it deserves.
Permission to copy this article with proper acknowledgements granted.
This article was published by Creation Science Alive in January 2005.
creature with gills to a land creature with a fully developed circulatory system? Where are the many transitions required to make such major
physiological changes? What about the change from fins to legs? Are they aware of the complex bones, joints, and circulatory structures required for
fins to change into legs? Where are those transitions in the fossil record? We won't even go into the inadequacy of the tiny pelvis to give birth to a
creature the size of a baby whale. NG states, "Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000
frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (page 25). If you examine everything else they offer as evidence, you'll find it's all flawed - without
exception. So where is their "overwhelming evidence"? It doesn't exist!
We do agree, however, with NG that, "no-one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith" (page 8). We believe it
should be accepted as a fanciful fairytale, complete with artistic drawings and whimsical assumptions. Calling evolution a "theory" gives it much
more credit than it deserves.
Permission to copy this article with proper acknowledgements granted.
This article was published by Creation Science Alive in January 2005.
The "Un-Scientific' Method - continued