I was reading my favorite dinosaur book the other day and I came across an interesting section. The book is called “Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of all Ages” and was written by Thomas Holtz Jr. Now, this isn’t a review on the book but I must say a few things about the book itself.
Thomas Holtz had Luis V. Rey illustrate his book and I must say that the man is very talented, accept when he adds feathers. I could not find a single good drawing out of all the feathered dinosaurs he created. In other words, his adding of feather to dinosaurs made the dinosaurs look . . . stupid and plain out incorrect.
As far as the book goes though, Holtz definitely is wrong in certain areas, such as evolution and feathered dinosaurs, but, otherwise, I find his writing style nearly captivating. Anyway, to that section that grabbed my interest . . .
Holtz was talking about cladistics (just a way of finding a connection between all animals, in very simple terms) and, specifically, a certain dinosaur. They had only found certain bones from this animal, and it was missing its hands, but, according to evolutionary thinking, since he was “evolved” from other two-fingered dinosaurs, then he must be two-fingered.
Then, the interesting part comes in.
Holtz argues, that to suggest the dinosaur has more than two fingers is . . .
to argue for an evolutionary change for which we don’t have evidence.
The next sentence is what really made my mouth drop.
In science, we should never argue for things for which we don’t have evidence (either directly or inferred from other information).
Doesn’t that sound a little hypocritical? I mean, don’t evolutionists do exactly that by arguing for evolutionary changes for which they don’t have evidence? It is almost like he is being sarcastic . . . but he isn’t. He really believes this stuff and we must pray for him and his illustrator.
There is a reason the missing link is missing, because it was never there to begin with.