Richard Dawkins dumps Fossil Record

In my research of the fossil record, it brings up more questions than it answers. As to the reason I believe Dawkins has decided to give it up as evidence for evolution.

  1. Living fossils: There are over 30 known living fossils of plants and animals, yet each one has the same problem. They are found in one layer of the supposed record, and alive. For some fossils that is a gap as big as 10 layers. These gaps exist for “every living fossil”. So 30 times there are 30 gaps of the record not recording the fossils surviving until present time.
  2. The layering of the Geologic Column: There is no observable or explainable mechanism to show how the layers the fossil are found in got laid over millions of years. Yet water will sort the layered sediments like this and is observable and repeatable (empirical evidence).
  3. Polystrate Fossils: Trees that run through several layers that are supposed to take millions of years to form. How does a tree not rot away while waiting to be buried in the millions of years it took to do this? It could be explained away if only a few were found but these Polystrate FossilsĀ  are found all over the world.
  4. Cross contamination of dating markers: Fossils can be cross contaminated by the layers they are buried in. Example: If you bury a bone that dates 1000 years bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years. Over a period of time the markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil and make it date the same as the layer even though it never was the same age. This raises several questions and answers why all fossils will “always” date the same age as the layer. There is no other option after so many years.
  5. The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep. So the record is only connected together by the age each layer dates and the fossils found in that layer. So an assumption has to be made here.

If Evolution Theory is true…..

If Evolution theory is true why does every documentary on how it happened contain 80-100% animation?

If Evolution theory were true and had tons of evidence why does that evidence require so much interpretation? Because if you take away the interpretation of all supposed evolution evidence what would you have left? But because the evidence requires interpretation without actual observation of what really happened, the interpretation is actually an assumption. And this assumption is based on evolution being a true proven fact which bars any other idea from ever being considered or even pondered. It also means that assuming evolution is a true proven fact as so many evolutionists will claim means that the supposed science that it’s based on is more about conformism than anything else. Conformism is not science.

Example: Let’s say this is like a horse race. Evolution and all the other ideas are set to race. The horn sounds for the race to begin but the only door that opens is the one that allows the evolution horse to run the race. The other horses (ideas) are not even allowed on the track. So evolution horse not only gets to run the race but is the only idea that is allowed to win every race. In an actual horse race that would be known as cheating (conformism).

If Evolution theory were true, why do evolutionists make complexity sound easy? If you think about it, that is an oxymoron statement. Complexity means exactly what is says and there is nothing easy about it. Here are the problems to making complexity sound easy for evolution to achieve concerning evolution of the eye.

  1. The more complex something is the more mutations required to achieve the final goal.
  2. With mutations, each mutation has to mutate in the correct order to eventually evolve the final product. What is it in evolution that guides each individual mutation to be just right? Because if even one mutation if off it will affect all the mutations that come after it which in turn affects what it is that evolves. Example: Let’s look at the evolution of the eye as a scientific flow chart in an experiment. To get to the last stage of this flow chart and get the desired result, you have to follow the flow chart exactly. Which means you cannot have one deviation or even one mess up or the experiment is ruined. So what is it in evolution that makes every mutation perfect, regardless of how many it takes, to achieve the finished product? The reason this question is avoided is because to venture here would make one realize that only intelligence can have a guiding hand in what happens. Random chance and mistakes don;t do that.
  3. Which evolved first? The eye or the vision center of the brain? The reason this question is so important is because one cannot work without the other. So an eye without the vision center of the brain would be useless. The most common answer is that they evolved at the same time. For evolution to be able to know when to evolve 2 things at the precise moments they are needed is to say evolution can tell time. Which again means there was intelligence involved. So this answer does not go along with random chance and accident mechanism of evolution.
  4. What programmed the vision center of the brain to be able to process what is seen by the eye so that we could process it and react to our surroundings? The vision center of the brain with no programming to process the information sent to it by the eye is like having a computer that has no operating system on it. It won’t work. Programing by random chance and accident is like claiming windows 95 evolved into windows 8 by accident while the computer sat in Bill Gates office for 20 years and no one touched it. Not going to happen.
  5. Claiming that the eye is not a design when it’s made just the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles for us to focus and see, is like saying the Hubble Telescope is not a design either.Design: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

The math that can be used to show how the eye is the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles so things are in focus shows by math itself that the eye was designed. And if not then evolutionists need to show how math that includes size and angles is done with no intelligence.

  • If we the most intelligent life on this planet cannot duplicate what exist or even life itself, why would we think that a non-intelligent force could do it? If you think about that, that’s an oxymoron logic. To claim that non-intelligence can do what intelligence cannot. So is being dumb smarter than smart?  Does not make any sense now does it?
  • The Unbelievers Movie.

    Quote from website “‘The Unbelievers’ follows renowned scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss across the globe as they speak publicly about the importance of science and reason in the modern world – encouraging others to cast off antiquated religious and politically motivated approaches toward important current issues.”

    These 2 people are on the forefront of everything anti-God. I deem them as the God haters – Christian haters. They support classifying being a Christian as a mental disorder. And that raising children in a Christian home is child abuse. They also agree with a group know as the Rational Response Squad that wants the Christian faith wiped from the face of the planet in less than 10 years. Yet by themselves, and their followers, they consider themselves the smartest people who ever walked the face of this planet. One could say that they both have a God complex. For they believe that every word spoken by them makes new truths and changes realities when they are spoken by them.

    But when someone has an attitude like this, it’s not really that hard to make them look stupid. Because no mere man can be God no matter how smart they become. So it was not hard for this one YouTube user to make a video using their own words to do just that.

    Richard Dawkins God complex and hatred towards anyone whom might disagree with him can be summed up in the next video where he tells one of his own to F off for disagreeing with him. And all others watching to F off as well for disagreeing with him. But being the coward that Dawkins is. To tell Tyson and everyone else to F off he uses a quote from New Scientists to do this. This is so if anyone tries to pin that comment to him he can always point the finger at someone else. Also notice how Tyson practically kisses Dawkins toes as he tries to relay something that Dawkins takes as a rebuke.

    I find it ironic that even though they claim not to believe in God their actions actually prove God exists. Because either they have to admit that God exists and they hate Him, or that they are really wasting their time going after something that does not exist. I guess it’s like their failed attempts to explain how something comes from nothing. Or that life comes from non-life when all that has been observed is life from life. Because if what they truly had as evidence was so convincing do you think anyone would buy into the existence of God? I don’t think so. So as usual this is the atheist attempt sell the masses what is not provable so the need to resort to hate and demonizing is needed. Because if they truly had the convincing science that they claim to have would such tactics need to be resorted to? Of course not. As to the reason it has to be done.