The Evolution Deceit
This error on the part of İhlas.net represents yet another instance of the Darwinist deception that has been going on for the last two hundred years. The moment that Darwinists realise that the fossil remains they discover belong to perfect and fully formed entities and that this clearly and irrefutably proves the fact of creation, they seek to adapt their findings to evolution by means of semantics. The fact is that the findings in question constitute no evidence that either the horse or the elephant emerged by way of evolution. Researchers who have already signed up to the theory of evolution consider a supposed line of descent based solely on similarities between life forms and produce totally imaginary evolutionary links between totally independent species. The fact is that these scenarios bear no relation to the fossil record. The theory of evolution has not a single intermediate fossil specimen to confirm the claim that life forms are descended from one another. The fact that fossils refute evolution represents the century’s most serious blow to the theory of evolution.
One authority to clearly express the absence from the fossil record of any transitional form fossil that might act as proof of evolution is Colin Patterson, chief palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. In an interview, Patterson said that the fossil series people spoke of as if they reality existed were in fact totally absent from the fossil record. He then went on to say: “If you ask ‘What is the evidence for continuity?’ you would have to say, ‘There isn’t any in the fossils of animal and man. The connection between them is in the mind’.”
We hope that in reporting such fossil discoveries in the future the İhlas.net news agency web site management will remember that there is no scientific basis to the evolutionist scenarios. By doing so they will avoid being used as pawns in the indoctrination of the public with unscientific Darwinism in the form of materialist accounts of creation. (You can read an earlier refutation of ours, containing definitive proofs, of the idea that Hipparion is the forerunner of the horse, HERE.)