This is one of my favourite topics, I get so excited as soon as i hear the word fossil. On a side note fossil is also a Bengali Rock Band which used to be one of my favourite during my college days in Kolkata, I so loved their lyrics.
Coming back to fossil, today we generally assume that fossil records are pro-evolution. I guess for Christians words like “fossil records” and “Big bang” and all these science stuff has become taboo, we don’t want to talk about it let alone teach, because we think all this science stuff proves evolution and that means we are on the losing side and why talk about it at all lets focus on things that strengthens our faith.
2 Timothy 1:7 says ” For the Spirit G-D gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power”. So if we are not given a timid Spirit then why do we shy away from these stuffs. One of the youth from our Church asked me “Should we Christians believe in Big Bang?”. I mean we are so far behind that it’s time we update ourselves or ours will also be just another blind faith. So without wasting anymore time lets get into Fossils.
As I said, it is widely assumed that the existence of fossil remains of numerous extinct species necessarily implies evolution, and most people are unaware that Darwin’s most formidable opponents were not clergymen but fossil experts.
In the early nineteenth century the prevailing geological theory was the “catostrophism” advocated by the great french scientist Cuvier, the father of Paleontology.
Cuvier believed that the geological record showed a pattern of catostrophic events involving mass extinctions, which were followed by periods of creation in which new forms of life appeared without any trace of evolutionary development.
Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that everything evolved from a common ancestor so if there was really a common ancestor then the chains of linking intermediates should exist which means if we all evolved from a single being then the connecting links should exist and if it does exist then we should be able to find their fossil remains if not for all of them but atleast for some of them. And let me say this here itself we haven’t found a single solid fossil evidence which suggests or points to evolution. What I mean is out of the thousands and thousands of fossil records that the scientists have been able to study none of the fossil record shows any hint of gradual development. Though there’s one such fossil record which the darwinist’s think is their solid abili which is the fossil of Archaeopteryx an ancient bird which is supposed to be the link between dinosaurs and birds however even this is not true to know more on this bird go here.
In the beginning of this post I said this is one of my favourite topics and the reason is because Fossil records presents one of the strongest opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Lets look at what some of the big players in this field have to say about this.
Lets begin with Darwin himself, Darwin did recognize that the fossil record posed a big problem for his theory because it didn’t show gradualism. That’s why he wrote,
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist), admitted that fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed, and remain the same until extinction without any directional change—exactly what one would expect to find if creation were true.
Fossil Record cannot establish ancestral relationships. Why not? Because, according to Michael Denton, “99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.” In other words, it’s extremely difficult to discover the biological makeup of a creature by looking at its fossil remains.
Jonathan Wells observes, “The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships.
Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, writes, “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Moreover, while apes may have a similar structure to humans, what is often overlooked is the fact that apes and humans bear almost no resemblance to snakes, fungus, and trees. But according to Darwinism, all living things have evolved from the same ancestor. To posit Darwinism, you must be able to explain the vast dissimilarity between living things. You must explain how the palm tree, the peacock, the octopus, the locust, the bat, the hippopotamus, the porcupine, the sea horse, the Venus flytrap, the human, and mildew, for example, have all descended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention. You also have to explain how the first life and the universe came into existence as well. Without viable explanations, which Darwinists have failed to provide.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in JESUS.
And I don’t have enough faith to believe in Evolution.
Do we really need God? 
All those animals, plants and fungii do have something in common- DNA. Should you study paleontology and biology, then you won’t need faith to believe in evolution. Without faith, your understanding will be far stronger. It’s up to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person