Scientists are touting new evidence for Darwinian evolution,
this time riding the fins of the ancient jawless fish Metaspriggina. This
supposedly 500 million year old fish (remember, all dating is purely speculative)
grew to be two inches long, and did not have jaws.
This new fossil discovery is being hailed as the precursor
to the jawbone; thanks to this new discovery, they say, we can learn what
animals had before the jaw evolved.
This is one of those times where evolutionists say they have
proof of evolution. But this doesn’t prove evolution at all.
A jawless fish only proves that there once was a fish that
had no jaw.
Proof of evolution would be transitional fossils—commonly
called missing links. A fish with a partial gill system, partial jaw system
would support Darwinism. Of course, nothing like this has ever been, nor will
ever be found.
Even more damaging to the victory of this discovery is the
fact that, still today, jawless fish exist; hagfish and lampreys are both
jawless. If jaws are proof of evolutionary progress, why do hagfish and
lampreys not have them? And why do all other animals (the ones supposedly older
than 500 million years) have
jawbones?
This is the exact opposite of proof.
The reality is God created a diverse animal kingdom, and the
more we learn, the more we should stand in awe of our magnificent Creator.
Comments
How do you explain bacteria evolving? It constantly evolves to survive. Look at the flu it's constantly changing or mersa which is mostly immune to antibiotics. Also you don't seem to like the scientific community very much. I would like to know why if you don't mind.
I apologize if this sounded rude or came out that way. I've read your site for awhile and this article made me want to comment. Also sorry for my English it's not that great. Hope to hear your thoughts.
I have no ill feelings towards the scientific community; Darwinian evolution is not science and should not be considered part of the scientific community. Science must follow the scientific method; science must let the facts lead us to the conclusion. Evolution starts with the conclusion they so desperately want to prove (the Big Bang), then works backwards to find facts to support it. They interpret every new find (like the jawless fish) as proof for evolution instead of looking with an open mind. That isn’t science, and all scientists should stand up and protest their methods.
As far as bacteria, the flu, and MRSA, that is a great example of microevolution, or minor changes within its kind (which the Bible has taught for centuries). That happens all the time. Darwinian evolution, or macroevolution, is changing from one species to another. That has never happened.
Creationism is not what I landed on because I don’t want to look for real answers. I’ve read dozens of books on evolution, much as I have studied world religions, cults, and Christian denominations. Yes, I have been in the Christian church since I was in second grade, but I never blindly accepted anything. I’ve spent my life searching for the truth, and just like Lee Strobel and James Macdonald, after looking at all the options on the table, I have concluded that the Bible is the greatest book ever written, and Yahweh is the one true God.
This blog is not just me hurling insults at evolutionists. My book Who is God? pits the God of the Bible against the gods of other religions, including the religion of evolution. I think you might enjoy that book.
Thank you again for your comment, and I hope this answer helps.
There is one barrier--the fact that it hasn't happened. You can argue for this change, but your augment only proves that you have no evidence. If you had proof, that would be the silencer.
According to the Bible, written thousands of years before Darwin's theory, "God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after its kind (Genesis 1:24).'"
Every shred of science in the universe upholds this verse. Everything produces after its kind.
If you can find a transitional fossil or a missing link, let them speak. Otherwise, the record is clear. Microevolution happens, but macro cannot and will not.
As I said before, any unbiased person would have to side with the Bible on this one. Science doesn't ask, "what barriers prevent this?" Science looks at the evidence and draws a reasonable conclusion. Science fiction is not a reasonable conclusion.
Thank you for your comment.
Nitrogen and Carbon are next to each other on the Periodic Table. Nitrogen has an atomic number of 14 and Carbon has a weight of 12. Sunlight frequently knocks the Nitrogen down to 12, thus boosting the Carbon to 14, and throwing off Carbon Dating. It is the epitome of junk science.
"Science looks at the evidence and draws a reasonable conclusion. " In this case, the evidence is Metaspriggina and its reliable dating, and the reasonable conclusion is that this is the form of ancestors of fish in the cambrium.