Holes in the Fossil Record

The last post I wrote was packed with information about the two different standpoints of of how the universe began. Since that issue has so much information, I did not have enough room to be very specific. So for this post I am going to be more specific about one issue that is a huge controversy between evolutionist and creationist. It is the fossil record.

You may think that I am jumping around a lot but I really want to present all the major controversies between the evolution and creation so for those that read all my post will know about them and be able to decide for yourself which one you think is true. If I have more time I will go back and write more post about the beginning of the universe since there is so much information to tell about just that one issue. But I want you to see the whole picture, in order to be able to choose which one you believe is true based on many parts of the evolution/creation argument not just one.

Evolutionists believe that the human race has evolved gradually, over a sixty million year time period, into what it is now. The theory is that the highly complex human race has gradually evolved from the tiny single-celled organism, the amoeba. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/protists/amoeba.shtml

For this to be true, there must be tons of transitional fossils that show the change from one organism to the next. There have been hundreds of millions fossil specimens found so there should be at least some transition specimens. But there are none. http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/fossil-record.htm So there is a big hole in the evolutionary theory. If this "macro-evolution" theory were true there should be "tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms." http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/fossil-record.htm So, I find it hard to believe that so many people that believe in evolution over look this quite large missing fact.

Dr. Gary Parker, Ph. D. and former evolutionist said, "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html. The fossil record actual hurts the evolutionary debate, instead of helping it, which is a major misconception that many people believe who do not put time into researching it.

"All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. " http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html This statement tends to lend itself to creation. The fact that there are no transitional specimens known and that the animals appear fully functional with no ancestors adds to the long list that creation is more logical than evolution. Creations says that everything was created by the hand of God over a six day time period. No species evolved into a completely new species over time. God created everything fully functional and the only changes that have occurred since then are due to natural selection. But I will talk about natural selection in another post. If you think about it, how is it possible that our highly complex and detailed human race evolved from a tiny one-celled organism? It is not even statistically possible. Let me give you an excerpt from a website to prove this to you.

"Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week." http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm

If a bacterium can not even put itself back together how can a our so much more involved and complex race evolve from an amoeba? The quote also helps support the claim that creation is the only logical origin of life, from my last post. There is no way that life spontaneously generated then evolved into the complexity life is now. So think about these facts, read the articles if you are so inclined and decide which theory makes more sense to you. Will it be the one with a HUGE gap and missing links (evolution) or one that it much more logical?