WellCookedFetus said:
Despite the shear weight of evidence that evolution has occurred some people refuse to believe, possible reasons are:
1. It violates the validity of certain religions claims and thus believing in evolution forces these people to question the accuracy of their religion. Even so believing in evolution does not prevent you from believing in a god.
2. Do to inaccuracy, vague nature of theories, and conflicting discussion between biologist to this day on explaining the workings of evolution one could come to the erroneous assumption that evolution never happened, this is a fallacy because in negates the evidence for evolution, just because we don't fully understand it does not mean it did not happen.
Well the Fossil Record has shown animal come suddenly. This would offend the theory.
I read a few days ago that a 7 million years old skull was just found in Africa. Which almost looks like if it was a skull of a modern man. Take that as a blow to the theory.
It is still being analyzed so we will see the results when it all comes out.
Here are some quotes on this issue. But I'm not here to debate this so, this is only for your information.
"The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution."
John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002
Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "
This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."
D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002
The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor." This shows that the evolutionary links established between extinct ape species based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterion of "human similarity" are totally imaginary.
John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.
John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002
The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.
The Guardian, 11 July 2002
I'm not going to say much about this discovery. This is all I know so do your own research. I provided you with the quotes so that will give you a place to start.
Here is the name of the fossil: Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Evolutionist claim this of being more of an ape-like skull. But don't trust anyone, not even me. You can see the quotes above, and what they suggest about the theory of evolution.
I'm not going to say anything more about this issue. Because this is ALL I know.