Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

Is evolution a myth?

Does the fossil record show a multitude of “transitional” forms that would support the idea of evolutionary change?

Here are some comments as a result from a quick google search, reference is an article in Forbes magazine:


Archaeopteryx …. has feathers… small teeth…has wings…flew…… BUT, since it has a fused clavicle, we are going to call it a transitional form which proves it came from dinosaurs. Wait a minute…. feathers…. wings…. flew… but because it has a fused clavicle we are going to call it a descendant from dinosaurs.

Nope, folks it is a bird. Paleontologists and evolutionary fan boys seeing something that isn’t there.


Pakicetus …..listed as a transitional form and proof of macro evolution. Now, this Pakicetus was a small land mammal. Ok, but why is it considered a transitional form and proof of the macro evolution of whales? Inquiring minds want to know…. so here it is: “….although it primarily lived its life on land, it is linked as a whale relative through its unique inner ear shape. Only whales have such an enhanced region of the ear called an "auditory bulla"--and Pakicetus has this too.”

Ok, I get it… small land mammal to big honking whale and the link is…. the “unique inner ear shape…” Does this seem right to you?


Pezosiren portelli ….The ancestry of manatees and dugongs was a long standing mystery in paleontology. In 2001, the discovery of Pezosiren portelli provided a huge clue. The fossil was discovered in Jamaica, and at 50 million years old represents the oldest member of the group Sirenia (sea cows). It is clear Pezosiren had 4 legs it used to walk on land, but it also had heavy ribs that could indicate it lived part time in water, much like a hippopotamus. This species likely represents the transitional form of sea cows as it maintained the general body plan of a sea cow, but just without flippers.

So, this Pezosiren walked on land, had four legs…BUT it also had heavy ribs…. right, heavy ribs… and this could… repeat could… indicate it lived part time in water …. like a hippopotamus. Yep, clearly an ancestor of a manatee…. the heavy ribs give it away.


Tiktaalik roseae ….Looking all the way back 375 million years ago, there is an intermediate fossil that represents the transition of vertebrate life from water to land. Tiktaalik roseae, discovered in Nunavut in 2004, is an ancient fish called a sarcopteryigian, or lobe-finned fish. Although it bears many similarities to fish like gills, scales, and fins, other key characteristics link Tiktaalik to land animals. While it did have fins, the bones inside the fins are homologous to the bones of the human hand and wrist, indicating it may have been able to bear weight. The animal also had a mobile neck and a strong ribcage, two critical traits that allowed four-legged (tetrapod) creatures to move onto land.

OK, it was a fish, they say that…. gills, scales, fins etc…. BUT, it is a link to land animals…Why? It had a mobile neck, strong ribcage and fins like a wrist…. Really? Seems more like the mudskippers I saw in Australia.


I submit that the fossil record has few.... if any.... examples of the much predicted "transitional forms." The fossil record does not support evolutionary theory.


The much ballyhooed "micro-evolution" is nothing but simple genetic variation and IS NOT supportive of the theory of evolution. Although the "hooey" part may be correct.

These verses, and more, are not outside the scope of your claim: ''You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil'' - Thunderstruck.

These verses falsify your claim.

They clearly do not just refer to so called 'natural calamities' - which if brought about by God for the reason of causing death and suffering is an act of evil.




Sure, there are.....and that is another contradiction in the bible.

The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, ... their land shall be soaked with blood, ... For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance. Isaiah 34:7-8

I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes. (Proverbs 1:26)

He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19

God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; Nahum 1:2

Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Isaiah 14:21


In contradiction to:


Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' - 1 Corinthians 13;


The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. << Psalm 145:9 >>

Nothing of the sort. Evolution is only denied by those who prefer creation myths. Theories or hypothesis relating to the means and mechanisms of evolution may be reviewed or modified as new information is acquired.

Evolution says nothing about the existence of a God or gods because supernatural entities are not necessary to explain evolution, and there is no evidence for them.

So back to justification through evidence: if there is insufficient evidence to support a justified conviction in the existence of a God or gods, it is not justified to be convinced of their existence. A conviction in the existence of a God or gods is an unjustified belief....a matter of faith not reason.

''Tom Bethell is a senior editor at American Spectator, "media fellow" at the Hoover Institution, and purveyor of just about every brand of wingnut pseudoscience you can name.

His ultimate anti-science manifesto is the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (PIGS), a book-length exudation promoting intelligent design, AIDS denial, stem cell myths, anti-environmentalism (mostly concentrating on global warming denial, the classic DDT and Rachel Carson canards, the crank version of radiation hormesis, and claiming that endangered species aren't really endangered), and cancer quackery. The book is exceptional in that one could easily use the thing as a whole as well as each individual chapter to play some form of crank bingo or a skeptical drinking game (if you really hate your liver). Many classic rhetorical gambits make an appearance: Science was wrong before, the Galileo gambit, the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, "suppression" of crankery "innovative" and "politically incorrect" ideas, science as a secular religion, the Gish Gallop, etc. The unifying theme is Bethell's conspiratorial perspective in which the scientific establishment is constantly sidelining "politically incorrect" dissent in order for scientists to prop up liberal ideology and make off with mountains of grant money.

Each topic covered also includes all the relevant greatest hits. On evolution, for example, all the old chestnuts are there: No transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, microevolution not macroevolution, Karl Popper's declaration of the theory as unfalsifiable, etc. If ye shall know them by their citations, it's predictable fare; Bethell's "qualified experts" include the usual suspects at the Discovery Institute (Dembski, Behe, and Wells), Peter Duesberg, S. Fred Singer, Steve McIntyre, Michael Crichton, Roy Spencer, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Petr Beckmann. *catches breath*

An 'all loving' God planned the world as it is and he creates-employs such wicked mercenaries to serve his purpose.

yet Christians try and tell ya God is not responsible for such evils, even though God distinctly tells them he is responsible.



RE: ;' love does not delight in evil'

maybe not delight, but love does approve of and sanction evil....without the role of evil , how would Gods plan transpire?

When God dealt out the cards at the table, he knowingly gave the devil his hand to play.

i believe consciousness came to be through evolution from the beginning.

consciousness might be an out growth of pure biology.

the fact we all can argue, discuss, and assume.

that means we have a mind. what a concept.

what we have to work out is meaning.

i mean, i like to fish & hunt for sure.

that means, i'm a predator, yes?

should we tax red meat?

BIble makes regular mention of mans mind and the importance of mans state of mind,.

but most christians are too drugged out on the idea of the spirit to address their feeble minds.

in complete contradiction to God , some christians tell you that what you think or believe,

,.. does not matter.

yes, but that's all so esoteric. ya know?

the real question is, should we tax red-meat?

i mean, a lot get's taxed. so why not add an addition?

the CF has those types. who think they are the chosen few with the Holy Spirit who are needed to understand Bible.

yet they make complete fools of themselves time and time again denying or contradicting what Bible clearly states.

apparently God made Bible so hard to comprehend for all the 'sheep brain' flock out there, that you need
special interpreters to decipher chiidrens parables.

Another hit and run job that is heavy in ad hominem and completely lacking in refutation. If he's a crackpot, refutation should be easy, yet no attempt is even made. Cary Mullis, the discoverer of polymerase chain reaction (DNA) and a Nobel Laureate, is (or was) also skeptical of the claim that HIV causes AIDS. Of course, that skepticism is decades old and the science may have improved the arguments for the HIV-causes AIDs lobby, but it doesn't mean Bethell's earlier skepticism about HIV-AIDS causation was wrong nor is it any evidence whatsoever that he is wrong about evolution. Another example of a staunch defender of Neo-Darwinism responding with logical fallacies rather than arguments.

i tell ya i'm against taxing red meat especially meat.

i'm down here on urth, and that's all i know.

others might very well know more.

how much tax on red meat??

Well opinions vary...you are only part of Brahmas(the creators) lotus dream, when he wakes the illusion that you exist
will dissolve ..and thus the truth revealed.

but don't let go of your faith.

For with faith you can believe[imagine] anything you want... virgin births, talking snakes ,donkeys and unicorns,

which are no more valid than todays folk who believe in Big-Foot, ..BF may even be more real cause we still
have a plethora of living eye-witnesses.



red meat has had a good run over the millennia, be a good sport and try fish on Fridays for a change.

Just as an aside, the Earth has to be more than a few thousand years old, because this thread has been going on for longer than that.

Hit and run? No, the article merely refers to the work of Bethell, what his position is and what he argues.

His argument against evolution uses all the old chestnuts, laughable and refuted long ago. It has no merit. It may give creationists comfort, but it's not science.

XXC posted:

“…..Closer to home, we have Mormons. I know good, smart people who are Mormons, people as capable of rational thought in most matters as anyone else, I would say. These people believe things that I find baffling. I read their stuff and it seems totally bizarre to me. If one of them were to say "you have to want to believe it for it to make sense", I don't think I could actually make myself want to believe it. It's just too far out there for my brain to say "yeah this might be legit, let's look into it". Those Mormons could now say I've chosen not to believe, but I maintain I had no choice, I simply found it unbelievable….”

Yes, I agree. When in Army basic training, I had a Mormon bunkmate. Great guy, friendly, competent and we got along just fine. Even though he was young, he was already some sort of big wig in the Mormon hierarchy. At the time, I was in the midst of my spiritual search and we had many long discussions regarding Mormon doctrine and such. Our interactions went on for pretty much all of Basic Training. Anyway, in the end, I decided… made a choice…. to believe it not. Not accept it as truth. It simply did not ring true and after “examining” what evidence I had, I rejected it.

Let me expand on this. I had posted the following:

“Warning: there are bible verses that clearly indicate that a man does indeed choose ...God or not....see Joshua’s statement about choosing God. But, it also teaches that God has a hand in it as well.... see Acts and the conversion of Lydia. These “side by side” teachings are somewhat of a mystery to me, but.... just because I do not fully understand simply means I do not fully understand....yet.”

Consider the honest seeker…the honest seeker is Nicodemus in John 3:1-16 …. Jesus responds quickly and clearly to Nicodemus, the honest seeker. I submit that Lydia was an “honest seeker.” Lydia is recorded as being in attendance at a “prayer meeting.” She was there because she wanted to be there and was interested. I presume she was seeker. The NIV calls her a “worshiper.” Seems this same word can be interpreted as “one who honors God” or simply as one who “holds God with significant regard.” Anyway, she was there and Paul shows up. It seems she was not “born again” as it is assumed she has not heard about Jesus at this point. So, we have an “honest seeker” who is trying to find truth and trying to find God. She has made a choice to hold God with regard and she is pursuing God.

BUT, we see that God has a hand in her conversion. Acts 16:14 it says “…. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”


So, we have an honest seeker and a God who responds with Holy Spirit enlightenment. One can see that Lydia did in fact “seek” and God did in fact “call.”

Lydia made a choice to seek and also benefited from God’s call.


Side note: There are many of these "side by side" teachings in the Bible. At times, God judges sin and then takes action. This demonstrates an attribute of God. God also loves and that is another attribute. So, this may be considered a "side by side" teaching..... God judges sin and takes action and shows us how serious sin is. He also shows His great love with Jesus sacrifice on the cross. God's love is an attribute here. No contradiction here at all. Just descriptions of different attributes of God. He is both a God of Love and He is also God that rejects sin and sinful actions.

Punishing generations for the transgression of their forebears may be defined as a Sin. It's certainly not justice.

I don't know, but it is a hell of a lot with all the .gov subsidies that are thrown into it. In the meantime, I am certain that you should pay twice as much as everyone else.

Actually birds are part of the dinosaur family. Not hard to find that info.

Pretty easy to find info that says man causes global warming, the earth is flat and Epstein committed suicide.

Great response!