Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ilya Bundin
48 followers
48 followers
About
Ilya's posts

Post has attachment
Evolutionists insist that the appearance of trilobites in the fossil record was preceded by a long evolutionary pathway. Sadly, it had not left behind any fossil evidence. One of the many no-go explanations for the nuisance says that “many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.” Contrary to this, some soft-bodied organisms have been perfectly preserved as fossils. Dickinsonia would make an excellent example.

Post has attachment
Different Cambrian trilobites have eyes of two different types. From nowhere, without any evolutionary prehistory, two types of complex and perfect optics appear simultaneously. Each of the both types of eyes would be enough to overthrow Darwinism, seeing they lack any evolutionary history. And together they render Darwinism twice undone.

Post has attachment
Trilobites come from nowhere. They have no evolutionary prehistory. They are found very close to the bottom of the fossil record. And still, they are already equipped with the outstandingly complex optics. This fact obstinately testifies to creation of trilobites and the complete inadequacy of Darwinism.

Post has attachment
Scientists possess no physical evidence to prove that trilobites descended from simpler animals. Neither do they possess any physical evidence to prove that some superfamilies of trilobites descended from other superfamilies of trilobites.

Post has attachment
Trilobites simply emerge in some of the lowest layers of sedimentary rocks (which are layers of mud turned into stone) without any track record. Such a sudden emergence of trilobites is a far cry from the evolution story, but hardly at odds with the global Flood destroying animals created by God.

Post has attachment
Parents, would you familiarize yourselves with your children’s biology textbooks? “In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” (David M. Raup, 1981) How daringly can scientific puzzles be solved by those textbook authors, who manage to keep up their optimism!

Post has attachment
Both fossils and the living nature objected loudly to Darwin's ideas, only he craved to believe he was right. So, he shut his eyes and stopped his ears. The lack of "transitional fossils" so-called and well-defined kinds of organisms are powerful arguments for creation.

Post has attachment
Does the fossil record show us Biblical creation (sudden appearance of different kinds of organisms, which multiply only according to their kind) or evolution (new kinds of organisms descend from other substantially different kinds, like fishes from invertebrates, amphibians from fishes, or people from apes)?

Post has attachment
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text-books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record …" (S. J. Gould, 1977)

Post has attachment
But when the dust settled, and the fossils were assessed in terms of whether they validated Darwin's evolutionary predictions, a clear picture of slow, gradual evolution, with smooth transitions and transformations from fossils of one period to another, was not forthcoming. (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, 1999)
Wait while more posts are being loaded