Ancient Fossils from Morocco Mess Up Modern Human Origins
The year was 1961. A barite mining operation at the Jebel Irhoud massif in Morocco, some 100 kilometers west of Marrakech, turned up a fossil human skull. Subsequent excavation uncovered more bones from other individuals, along with animal remains and stone tools. Scientists’ best guess was that the remains were about 40,000 years old and represented African versions of Neandertals. In the decades that followed, researchers shifted their stance on the identity of the remains, coming to see them as members of our own species, Homo sapiens—and they redated [sic] the site to roughly 160,000 years ago. Still, the Jebel Irhoud fossils remained something of a mystery, because in some respects they looked more primitive than older H. sapiens fossils.
Now new evidence is rewriting the story of Jebel Irhoud once again. A team led by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has recovered more human fossils and more stone tools, along with compelling evidence that the site is double the age experts previously believed it to be. The researchers describe their findings in papers published this week in Nature.
Scientific American: Ancient Fossils from Morocco Mess Up Modern Human Origins
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510010 wrote: Ancient Fossils from Morocco Mess Up Modern Human Origins
The year was 1961. A barite mining operation at the Jebel Irhoud massif in Morocco, some 100 kilometers west of Marrakech, turned up a fossil human skull. Subsequent excavation uncovered more bones from other individuals, along with animal remains and stone tools. Scientists’ best guess was that the remains were about 40,000 years old and represented African versions of Neandertals. In the decades that followed, researchers shifted their stance on the identity of the remains, coming to see them as members of our own species, Homo sapiens—and they redated [sic] the site to roughly 160,000 years ago. Still, the Jebel Irhoud fossils remained something of a mystery, because in some respects they looked more primitive than older H. sapiens fossils.
Now new evidence is rewriting the story of Jebel Irhoud once again. A team led by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has recovered more human fossils and more stone tools, along with compelling evidence that the site is double the age experts previously believed it to be. The researchers describe their findings in papers published this week in Nature.
Scientific American: Ancient Fossils from Morocco Mess Up Modern Human Origins
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Mystery Fossil Study Fits Creation
In the mid-1800s, a mysterious new fossil, Prototaxites, was described. The large, tree-trunk-shaped fossils were found in some of the lowermost fossil-bearing rock layers. To date, researchers have been unable to say exactly what they are, whether the remains of an ancient conifer tree, a strangely huge fungus, giant marine alga, or a unique and extinct plant. A new study claims that they are the remains of rolled-up mats of a liverwort plant interwoven with fungus cells, a conclusion that is remarkably consistent with the creation model.
Liverworts grow in cool, damp environments, but they do not grow tall because they have no vessels to transport sap. Instead, nutrients are traded directly from cell to cell. What force could have rolled up a plant mat, and what process would transform soft plant material into hard fossils?
These odd fossils appear to have layers that in cross-section resemble concentric tree rings. But under the microscope, the fine structure is not tree-like, instead having tiny, sometimes intertwined hollow tube structures. In a report published in the American Journal of Botany, University of Wisconsin botanist Linda Graham and her colleagues presented various arguments in support of their interpretation that Prototaxites are rolled-up liverwort mats.1
The researchers experimented by rolling up living liverwort mats, and they found these had many features in common with the fossils. They also observed that other liverwort fossils are found in Ordovician rocks, and that modern liverworts can form a mat extending over several acres. Overall, the “structural and physiological studies revealed strong similarities between the fossil Protaxites and the modern liverwort Marchantia.1
Modern Marchantia liverworts can live in association with a certain fungus. Together, the two organisms share resources. The liverwort captures sunlight energy, and the surplus can be shared with the fungus. Alternatively, chemical energy can be absorbed from a watery environment below. Thus, the plant is said to be “mixotrophic, able to obtain energy from a variety of sources. These capabilities point to brilliant and creative engineering.
If the researchers have correctly identified the source organism of these long-enigmatic fossils, several questions arise. First, if liverworts evolved, why do they appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, complete with photosynthetic apparatuses and a well-orchestrated partnership with a completely different organism? Why is there no clear evidence of gradual transition from a “lower life form to liverworts? It appears that they were well-designed in this form right from the start and have reproduced after their own kind ever since.
Also, if the Silurian strata in which the lowest Prototaxites fossils are found were formed 420 million years ago, then why are the fossils still recognizable as relatives of common modern-day Marchantia liverwort plants? It appears, scientifically speaking, that they have experienced very little if any effects of mutation, selection, or any other proposed evolutionary mechanism.
The current study found that the living and fossil plant forms had small and thin rhizoids (slender, rootlike filaments), larger and thick-walled rhizoids, certain wavy-walled rhizoids, associated cyanobacterial filaments, appropriate dimensions for Prototaxites “rings consistent with the various thicknesses of liverwort mats, and the odd inclusion of totally different plant parts within the fossils•corresponding to plants that perhaps were caught in the mat as it was rolled up.
Finally, what kind of process could have rolled liverwort mats into massive 28-foot-long sections with over a 4-foot diameter? The authors suggested this was accomplished “by wind, gravity, or water.1 Of the three, water would carry by far the most force. And considering that wind and gravity do not roll up modern liverwort mats—which are anchored to their substrates and to each other with many tough and tiny rhizoids—water would seem the most reasonable of the three potential causes.
The ancient liverwort mats must have been subjected to a catastrophic event in which water struck them with sufficient force to roll them into massive “trunks and then almost immediately buried them under sediments that preserved their soft-plant structures. This is consistent with the creation interpretation of the Silurian and Devonian strata in which Prototaxites are found, which is that these rock layers represent deposited remains of the pre-Flood earth and oceans that occurred during the first stages of the Genesis Flood, when waters inundated the land.2 The fossil record continues to provide evidence for the accuracy of the biblical account.3
Mystery Fossil Study Fits Creation | The Institute for Creation Research
The year was 1961. A barite mining operation at the Jebel Irhoud massif in Morocco, some 100 kilometers west of Marrakech, turned up a fossil human skull. Subsequent excavation uncovered more bones from other individuals, along with animal remains and stone tools. Scientists’ best guess was that the remains were about 40,000 years old and represented African versions of Neandertals. In the decades that followed, researchers shifted their stance on the identity of the remains, coming to see them as members of our own species, Homo sapiens—and they redated [sic] the site to roughly 160,000 years ago. Still, the Jebel Irhoud fossils remained something of a mystery, because in some respects they looked more primitive than older H. sapiens fossils.
Now new evidence is rewriting the story of Jebel Irhoud once again. A team led by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has recovered more human fossils and more stone tools, along with compelling evidence that the site is double the age experts previously believed it to be. The researchers describe their findings in papers published this week in Nature.
Scientific American: Ancient Fossils from Morocco Mess Up Modern Human Origins
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Mystery Fossil Study Fits Creation
In the mid-1800s, a mysterious new fossil, Prototaxites, was described. The large, tree-trunk-shaped fossils were found in some of the lowermost fossil-bearing rock layers. To date, researchers have been unable to say exactly what they are, whether the remains of an ancient conifer tree, a strangely huge fungus, giant marine alga, or a unique and extinct plant. A new study claims that they are the remains of rolled-up mats of a liverwort plant interwoven with fungus cells, a conclusion that is remarkably consistent with the creation model.
Liverworts grow in cool, damp environments, but they do not grow tall because they have no vessels to transport sap. Instead, nutrients are traded directly from cell to cell. What force could have rolled up a plant mat, and what process would transform soft plant material into hard fossils?
These odd fossils appear to have layers that in cross-section resemble concentric tree rings. But under the microscope, the fine structure is not tree-like, instead having tiny, sometimes intertwined hollow tube structures. In a report published in the American Journal of Botany, University of Wisconsin botanist Linda Graham and her colleagues presented various arguments in support of their interpretation that Prototaxites are rolled-up liverwort mats.1
The researchers experimented by rolling up living liverwort mats, and they found these had many features in common with the fossils. They also observed that other liverwort fossils are found in Ordovician rocks, and that modern liverworts can form a mat extending over several acres. Overall, the “structural and physiological studies revealed strong similarities between the fossil Protaxites and the modern liverwort Marchantia.1
Modern Marchantia liverworts can live in association with a certain fungus. Together, the two organisms share resources. The liverwort captures sunlight energy, and the surplus can be shared with the fungus. Alternatively, chemical energy can be absorbed from a watery environment below. Thus, the plant is said to be “mixotrophic, able to obtain energy from a variety of sources. These capabilities point to brilliant and creative engineering.
If the researchers have correctly identified the source organism of these long-enigmatic fossils, several questions arise. First, if liverworts evolved, why do they appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, complete with photosynthetic apparatuses and a well-orchestrated partnership with a completely different organism? Why is there no clear evidence of gradual transition from a “lower life form to liverworts? It appears that they were well-designed in this form right from the start and have reproduced after their own kind ever since.
Also, if the Silurian strata in which the lowest Prototaxites fossils are found were formed 420 million years ago, then why are the fossils still recognizable as relatives of common modern-day Marchantia liverwort plants? It appears, scientifically speaking, that they have experienced very little if any effects of mutation, selection, or any other proposed evolutionary mechanism.
The current study found that the living and fossil plant forms had small and thin rhizoids (slender, rootlike filaments), larger and thick-walled rhizoids, certain wavy-walled rhizoids, associated cyanobacterial filaments, appropriate dimensions for Prototaxites “rings consistent with the various thicknesses of liverwort mats, and the odd inclusion of totally different plant parts within the fossils•corresponding to plants that perhaps were caught in the mat as it was rolled up.
Finally, what kind of process could have rolled liverwort mats into massive 28-foot-long sections with over a 4-foot diameter? The authors suggested this was accomplished “by wind, gravity, or water.1 Of the three, water would carry by far the most force. And considering that wind and gravity do not roll up modern liverwort mats—which are anchored to their substrates and to each other with many tough and tiny rhizoids—water would seem the most reasonable of the three potential causes.
The ancient liverwort mats must have been subjected to a catastrophic event in which water struck them with sufficient force to roll them into massive “trunks and then almost immediately buried them under sediments that preserved their soft-plant structures. This is consistent with the creation interpretation of the Silurian and Devonian strata in which Prototaxites are found, which is that these rock layers represent deposited remains of the pre-Flood earth and oceans that occurred during the first stages of the Genesis Flood, when waters inundated the land.2 The fossil record continues to provide evidence for the accuracy of the biblical account.3
Mystery Fossil Study Fits Creation | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Mushroom from dinosaur era.
With a classic shape, gills and a sturdy stalk, it wouldn’t look out of place in a stir-fry – but in fact it’s the fossilised remains of a mushroom thought to have sprouted about 115m years ago. It is the world’s oldest known fossil mushroom, and it is remarkable that it was preserved at all.
“It is pretty astonishing, said Sam Heads, a palaeontologist and co-author of the research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Mushrooms are really ephemeral in the sense that to begin with they sprout up, they grow and then usually they are gone within a few days – but they are not around for very long. Also when you consider their structure, they are very soft and fleshy and so they decay really rapidly, so the chances of one being preserved are pretty minuscule.
While fossilised fungal filaments have previously been found dating back several hundreds of millions of years, only 10 fossil mushrooms, the fruiting body produced by some fungi, have ever been discovered – with the previous oldest dating to 99m years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -dinosaurs
With a classic shape, gills and a sturdy stalk, it wouldn’t look out of place in a stir-fry – but in fact it’s the fossilised remains of a mushroom thought to have sprouted about 115m years ago. It is the world’s oldest known fossil mushroom, and it is remarkable that it was preserved at all.
“It is pretty astonishing, said Sam Heads, a palaeontologist and co-author of the research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Mushrooms are really ephemeral in the sense that to begin with they sprout up, they grow and then usually they are gone within a few days – but they are not around for very long. Also when you consider their structure, they are very soft and fleshy and so they decay really rapidly, so the chances of one being preserved are pretty minuscule.
While fossilised fungal filaments have previously been found dating back several hundreds of millions of years, only 10 fossil mushrooms, the fruiting body produced by some fungi, have ever been discovered – with the previous oldest dating to 99m years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -dinosaurs
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510018 wrote: Fossil Mushroom from dinosaur era.
With a classic shape, gills and a sturdy stalk, it wouldn’t look out of place in a stir-fry – but in fact it’s the fossilised remains of a mushroom thought to have sprouted about 115m years ago. It is the world’s oldest known fossil mushroom, and it is remarkable that it was preserved at all.
“It is pretty astonishing, said Sam Heads, a palaeontologist and co-author of the research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Mushrooms are really ephemeral in the sense that to begin with they sprout up, they grow and then usually they are gone within a few days – but they are not around for very long. Also when you consider their structure, they are very soft and fleshy and so they decay really rapidly, so the chances of one being preserved are pretty minuscule.
While fossilised fungal filaments have previously been found dating back several hundreds of millions of years, only 10 fossil mushrooms, the fruiting body produced by some fungi, have ever been discovered – with the previous oldest dating to 99m years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -dinosaurs
Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amber Fossils Redefine 'Age of Reptiles'
Supposedly, dinosaurs lived during an “Age of Reptiles when many of today’s creatures had not yet evolved. Museums and textbooks typically display fossil dinosaurs in isolation, and many modern paintings even depict dinosaurs alone except for a few ferns. Yet, secular researchers George Poinar, Jr. and Ron Buckley collected and studied fossils from Burmese amber, or Burmite, that hold evidence of a different history.1 This amber—hardened tree resin—preserved parts of modern-looking birds, reptiles, fish, clams, plants, and mammals in strata near or below dinosaur fossils. Should the Age of Reptiles be renamed for a more accurate description?
The evolutionary timescale maintains these amber fossils were deposited about 35 million years before the last surviving dinosaur died.1 If this is true, then the fossils should include numerous evolutionary precursors of contemporary plants and animals—but they don’t. Instead, the Burmite contains modern look-alikes, as well as extinct varieties.
Occurring near coal deposits, these remarkable specimens from Burma (present-day Myanmar) bear an assigned age of 100 million years.1 Apparently, a whole forest with damaged kauri trees—representatives of which grow and produce useful resins today—exuded copious amounts of resin years ago when their limbs and trunks were torn asunder. Soon after, water action separated the tree parts into layers and washed sediments between them. This aligns with a recent report on Burmite flowers, which stated that “the amber occurs in marine sedimentary rocks.2 Such evident widespread watery violence clearly implies a massive flood event.
With further burial and heating, the tree bark turned into coal—a process that can be duplicated in a single day.3 The resin, situated separately but nearby, then hardened into amber—a process requiring weeks to decades, depending on factors like sample thickness, type of resin, and temperature.4
One unique Burmese amber nodule contains a mushroom fossil being eaten by a second fungus, which was being eaten in turn by a third fungus.5 They show that, just like today, ancient fungi parasitized other fungi. Some Burmite even contains fern and bamboo bits, indicating that a wide variety of flowers and grasses should be displayed in dinosaur dioramas.6,7
The Burmite fossil insects are spectacular and rare among ambers of the world. Several unfamiliar forms, like one unusually shaped type of fly, probably went extinct, but they represent basic kinds that still resemble extant varieties. Other familiar forms found in Burmite include a click beetle, weevil, moth, grasshopper, mayfly, caddisfly, lacewing, cockroach, bark beetle, walking stick, cicada, plant bug, bee, long horn beetle, ichneumonid wasp, gnat, midge, queen ant, praying mantis, and more. Some specimens also contain a centipede, millipede, jumping spider, tick, scorpion, many different garden spiders, a bark louse, leaf bits, nematodes, and a snail shell. The majority of these tiny entombed relics of the past look just like today’s versions.
Perhaps the most fascinating inclusions hint at larger creatures. One holds a small lizard’s foot, while another contains two flight feathers from a fully modern bird. This exposes the irrelevance of a 2011 report by the journal Science that claimed fibers from supposedly 65-million-year-old amber were dinosaur protofeathers. They could have been hairs or plant fibers.8 And some Burmite apparently does include hair.1 The supposed Age of Reptiles is quickly earning a description more like the “age of reptiles, mammals, birds, insects, and plants resembling modern varieties, plus a few that have since gone extinct.
Amber Fossils Redefine 'Age of Reptiles' | The Institute for Creation Research
With a classic shape, gills and a sturdy stalk, it wouldn’t look out of place in a stir-fry – but in fact it’s the fossilised remains of a mushroom thought to have sprouted about 115m years ago. It is the world’s oldest known fossil mushroom, and it is remarkable that it was preserved at all.
“It is pretty astonishing, said Sam Heads, a palaeontologist and co-author of the research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Mushrooms are really ephemeral in the sense that to begin with they sprout up, they grow and then usually they are gone within a few days – but they are not around for very long. Also when you consider their structure, they are very soft and fleshy and so they decay really rapidly, so the chances of one being preserved are pretty minuscule.
While fossilised fungal filaments have previously been found dating back several hundreds of millions of years, only 10 fossil mushrooms, the fruiting body produced by some fungi, have ever been discovered – with the previous oldest dating to 99m years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -dinosaurs
Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amber Fossils Redefine 'Age of Reptiles'
Supposedly, dinosaurs lived during an “Age of Reptiles when many of today’s creatures had not yet evolved. Museums and textbooks typically display fossil dinosaurs in isolation, and many modern paintings even depict dinosaurs alone except for a few ferns. Yet, secular researchers George Poinar, Jr. and Ron Buckley collected and studied fossils from Burmese amber, or Burmite, that hold evidence of a different history.1 This amber—hardened tree resin—preserved parts of modern-looking birds, reptiles, fish, clams, plants, and mammals in strata near or below dinosaur fossils. Should the Age of Reptiles be renamed for a more accurate description?
The evolutionary timescale maintains these amber fossils were deposited about 35 million years before the last surviving dinosaur died.1 If this is true, then the fossils should include numerous evolutionary precursors of contemporary plants and animals—but they don’t. Instead, the Burmite contains modern look-alikes, as well as extinct varieties.
Occurring near coal deposits, these remarkable specimens from Burma (present-day Myanmar) bear an assigned age of 100 million years.1 Apparently, a whole forest with damaged kauri trees—representatives of which grow and produce useful resins today—exuded copious amounts of resin years ago when their limbs and trunks were torn asunder. Soon after, water action separated the tree parts into layers and washed sediments between them. This aligns with a recent report on Burmite flowers, which stated that “the amber occurs in marine sedimentary rocks.2 Such evident widespread watery violence clearly implies a massive flood event.
With further burial and heating, the tree bark turned into coal—a process that can be duplicated in a single day.3 The resin, situated separately but nearby, then hardened into amber—a process requiring weeks to decades, depending on factors like sample thickness, type of resin, and temperature.4
One unique Burmese amber nodule contains a mushroom fossil being eaten by a second fungus, which was being eaten in turn by a third fungus.5 They show that, just like today, ancient fungi parasitized other fungi. Some Burmite even contains fern and bamboo bits, indicating that a wide variety of flowers and grasses should be displayed in dinosaur dioramas.6,7
The Burmite fossil insects are spectacular and rare among ambers of the world. Several unfamiliar forms, like one unusually shaped type of fly, probably went extinct, but they represent basic kinds that still resemble extant varieties. Other familiar forms found in Burmite include a click beetle, weevil, moth, grasshopper, mayfly, caddisfly, lacewing, cockroach, bark beetle, walking stick, cicada, plant bug, bee, long horn beetle, ichneumonid wasp, gnat, midge, queen ant, praying mantis, and more. Some specimens also contain a centipede, millipede, jumping spider, tick, scorpion, many different garden spiders, a bark louse, leaf bits, nematodes, and a snail shell. The majority of these tiny entombed relics of the past look just like today’s versions.
Perhaps the most fascinating inclusions hint at larger creatures. One holds a small lizard’s foot, while another contains two flight feathers from a fully modern bird. This exposes the irrelevance of a 2011 report by the journal Science that claimed fibers from supposedly 65-million-year-old amber were dinosaur protofeathers. They could have been hairs or plant fibers.8 And some Burmite apparently does include hair.1 The supposed Age of Reptiles is quickly earning a description more like the “age of reptiles, mammals, birds, insects, and plants resembling modern varieties, plus a few that have since gone extinct.
Amber Fossils Redefine 'Age of Reptiles' | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
"While people are most familiar with carbon dating, carbon dating is rarely applicable to fossils. Carbon-14, the radioactive isotope of carbon used in carbon dating has a half-life of 5730 years, so it decays too fast. It can only be used to date fossils younger than about 75,000 years.
Potassium-40 on the other hand has a half like of 1.25 billion years and is common in rocks and minerals. This makes it ideal for dating much older rocks and fossils."
Smithsonian Institute
Potassium-40 on the other hand has a half like of 1.25 billion years and is common in rocks and minerals. This makes it ideal for dating much older rocks and fossils."
Smithsonian Institute
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510052 wrote: "While people are most familiar with carbon dating, carbon dating is rarely applicable to fossils. Carbon-14, the radioactive isotope of carbon used in carbon dating has a half-life of 5730 years, so it decays too fast. It can only be used to date fossils younger than about 75,000 years.
Potassium-40 on the other hand has a half like of 1.25 billion years and is common in rocks and minerals. This makes it ideal for dating much older rocks and fossils."
Smithsonian Institute
Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Radiometric Dating Flaws
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.
• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Questionable Dating of Bloody Mosquito Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research
Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
Potassium-40 on the other hand has a half like of 1.25 billion years and is common in rocks and minerals. This makes it ideal for dating much older rocks and fossils."
Smithsonian Institute
Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Radiometric Dating Flaws
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.
• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Questionable Dating of Bloody Mosquito Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research
Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I recall there are more than a dozen dating method. Some are thought to be very accurate. As far as contradicting the Bible goes it is not a big deal as the ancient writers though intelligent did not have the fund of knowledge that we have today. The Bible is not a history book nor is it a science book. It is composed of myth, legend, poetry, short stories, folk tales, a little , very little bit of actual history. Ie no exodus as written, no flood as written etc.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1510153 wrote: As I recall there are more than a dozen dating method. Some are thought to be very accurate. As far as contradicting the Bible goes it is not a big deal as the ancient writers though intelligent did not have the fund of knowledge that we have today. The Bible is not a history book nor is it a science book. It is composed of myth, legend, poetry, short stories, folk tales, a little , very little bit of actual history. Ie no exodus as written, no flood as written etc.
That proves the Bible was inspired by God. All those writers who knew nothing were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered. Also they accurately predicted the future.
If humans wrote the Bible, then please explain how they knew scientific facts that have only recently been discovered, and how were they able to accurately predict the future 2000 times.
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
There is quite a lot of evidence for the Flood:
Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
What now?
The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.
The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).
How will you respond?
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/
That proves the Bible was inspired by God. All those writers who knew nothing were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered. Also they accurately predicted the future.
If humans wrote the Bible, then please explain how they knew scientific facts that have only recently been discovered, and how were they able to accurately predict the future 2000 times.
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
There is quite a lot of evidence for the Flood:
Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.
Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
What now?
The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.
The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).
How will you respond?
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
There is no science in the Bible. What I posted has no bearing on the reality of evolution.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1510159 wrote: There is no science in the Bible. What I posted has no bearing on the reality of evolution.
Well, then. See? You do have something in common with Pahu. :sneaky: :-3 :wah:
Well, then. See? You do have something in common with Pahu. :sneaky: :-3 :wah:
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 4
“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that. Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]
“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today. [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1510175 wrote:
Fossil Gaps 4
“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that. Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]
“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today. [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Well, here ya go.
A transitional Whale Fossil has been identified. (There have been several since that tidbit by Knopf, by the way.)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/la ... e-history/
A new fossil whale described by paleontologist Olivier Lambert and colleagues is the latest piece of whales’ prehistoric puzzle. They’ve named it Mystacodon selenensis, and this 36.4 million year old mammal adds some new context to the origin of the great, filter-feeding baleen whales.
The remains of Mystacodon, excavated from Peru’s Pisco Basin, consist of a partial skeleton that includes the skull, teeth, vertebrae from various places in the spine, partial forelimbs, and a hip bone. The overall look of the whale was similar to Basilosaurus, the elongated predator that, until recently, was the classic image of what the most ancient whales were like. Yet, Lambert and coauthors write, specific features of the skull identify Mystacodon as the earliest known baleen whale. This cetacean is an anatomical bridge between more archaic forms like Basilosaurus and the profusion of baleen whales that followed.
Fossil Gaps 4
“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that. Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]
“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today. [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Well, here ya go.
A transitional Whale Fossil has been identified. (There have been several since that tidbit by Knopf, by the way.)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/la ... e-history/
A new fossil whale described by paleontologist Olivier Lambert and colleagues is the latest piece of whales’ prehistoric puzzle. They’ve named it Mystacodon selenensis, and this 36.4 million year old mammal adds some new context to the origin of the great, filter-feeding baleen whales.
The remains of Mystacodon, excavated from Peru’s Pisco Basin, consist of a partial skeleton that includes the skull, teeth, vertebrae from various places in the spine, partial forelimbs, and a hip bone. The overall look of the whale was similar to Basilosaurus, the elongated predator that, until recently, was the classic image of what the most ancient whales were like. Yet, Lambert and coauthors write, specific features of the skull identify Mystacodon as the earliest known baleen whale. This cetacean is an anatomical bridge between more archaic forms like Basilosaurus and the profusion of baleen whales that followed.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510227 wrote: Well, here ya go.
A transitional Whale Fossil has been identified. (There have been several since that tidbit by Knopf, by the way.)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/la ... e-history/
A new fossil whale described by paleontologist Olivier Lambert and colleagues is the latest piece of whales’ prehistoric puzzle. They’ve named it Mystacodon selenensis, and this 36.4 million year old mammal adds some new context to the origin of the great, filter-feeding baleen whales.
The remains of Mystacodon, excavated from Peru’s Pisco Basin, consist of a partial skeleton that includes the skull, teeth, vertebrae from various places in the spine, partial forelimbs, and a hip bone. The overall look of the whale was similar to Basilosaurus, the elongated predator that, until recently, was the classic image of what the most ancient whales were like. Yet, Lambert and coauthors write, specific features of the skull identify Mystacodon as the earliest known baleen whale. This cetacean is an anatomical bridge between more archaic forms like Basilosaurus and the profusion of baleen whales that followed.
Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale
Ever since Darwin the fossil record has been an embarrassment to evolutionists. The predictions concerning what evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to find the many tens of thousands of undoubted transitional forms that are demanded by evolutionary theory, but the number of arguable, let alone demonstrable, transitional forms that have been suggested are few indeed. This has placed evolutionists in a most difficult situation, made even more embarrassing by the fact that the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on special creation.
Darwin and, for about the first century following Darwin, the Darwinists pleaded the poverty of the fossil record. The claim was made that the transitional forms, or "missing links," as the term became known popularly were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. It was also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. These arguments have now fallen into disfavor among many Darwinian geologists. An intense search spanning 120 years has produced an immensely rich fossil record but has failed to produce the expected transitional forms, and many geologists now realize the impossibility that a combination of geological processes would have miraculously eliminated all the billions of transitional forms while leaving billions of fossils of the terminal forms intact.
Many evolutionists, not content to explain away the gaps in the fossil record, still persist in hopes of finding missing links. This results in a never-ending series of claims concerning the discovery of transitional forms, sometimes sensational. These claims, with passage of time, generally are discredited by further research, although many persist in textbooks long after they are discredited, since once error gets in it is hard to get out.
Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.
News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5
But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.
The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.
The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.
Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale | The Institute for Creation Research
A transitional Whale Fossil has been identified. (There have been several since that tidbit by Knopf, by the way.)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/la ... e-history/
A new fossil whale described by paleontologist Olivier Lambert and colleagues is the latest piece of whales’ prehistoric puzzle. They’ve named it Mystacodon selenensis, and this 36.4 million year old mammal adds some new context to the origin of the great, filter-feeding baleen whales.
The remains of Mystacodon, excavated from Peru’s Pisco Basin, consist of a partial skeleton that includes the skull, teeth, vertebrae from various places in the spine, partial forelimbs, and a hip bone. The overall look of the whale was similar to Basilosaurus, the elongated predator that, until recently, was the classic image of what the most ancient whales were like. Yet, Lambert and coauthors write, specific features of the skull identify Mystacodon as the earliest known baleen whale. This cetacean is an anatomical bridge between more archaic forms like Basilosaurus and the profusion of baleen whales that followed.
Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale
Ever since Darwin the fossil record has been an embarrassment to evolutionists. The predictions concerning what evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to find the many tens of thousands of undoubted transitional forms that are demanded by evolutionary theory, but the number of arguable, let alone demonstrable, transitional forms that have been suggested are few indeed. This has placed evolutionists in a most difficult situation, made even more embarrassing by the fact that the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on special creation.
Darwin and, for about the first century following Darwin, the Darwinists pleaded the poverty of the fossil record. The claim was made that the transitional forms, or "missing links," as the term became known popularly were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. It was also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. These arguments have now fallen into disfavor among many Darwinian geologists. An intense search spanning 120 years has produced an immensely rich fossil record but has failed to produce the expected transitional forms, and many geologists now realize the impossibility that a combination of geological processes would have miraculously eliminated all the billions of transitional forms while leaving billions of fossils of the terminal forms intact.
Many evolutionists, not content to explain away the gaps in the fossil record, still persist in hopes of finding missing links. This results in a never-ending series of claims concerning the discovery of transitional forms, sometimes sensational. These claims, with passage of time, generally are discredited by further research, although many persist in textbooks long after they are discredited, since once error gets in it is hard to get out.
Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.
News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"—, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5
But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).
This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.
The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.
The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.
Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10
Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You are delightfully predictable.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
"The Bible was inspired by God". On that I will give you partial credit, as it was certainly inspired by a BELIEF in God. A belief / faith is, by definition, something that requires no evidence of anything whatsoever as it is purely an abstract thing. It has no substance. It is purely in the mind.
As for fossils being an embarassment to Evolutionists - just where do you get that notion (silly question really - Dolt Brown)? The majority of the evidence supporting evolution is based on an ever increasing library of fossil evidence. Evolutionists see patterns forming in the fossil evidence & are able to make predictions of things that are likely to be found at certain time levels & time & time again these predictions have proved to be correct. Evidence to support Evolution is increasing every day. What evidence is there to support the Bible? None. Why? Because the Bible doesn't provide any evidence. There is no additional information. The Bible is a single document. If it were for real it would be an ongoing chronical. It would never have been completed. It supposedly itemises all the generations of Man. Then it suddenly stops. The End. That is basically how every work of fiction is structured - "Once upon a time" (In the beginning), up until "The End" (Amen).
As for fossils being an embarassment to Evolutionists - just where do you get that notion (silly question really - Dolt Brown)? The majority of the evidence supporting evolution is based on an ever increasing library of fossil evidence. Evolutionists see patterns forming in the fossil evidence & are able to make predictions of things that are likely to be found at certain time levels & time & time again these predictions have proved to be correct. Evidence to support Evolution is increasing every day. What evidence is there to support the Bible? None. Why? Because the Bible doesn't provide any evidence. There is no additional information. The Bible is a single document. If it were for real it would be an ongoing chronical. It would never have been completed. It supposedly itemises all the generations of Man. Then it suddenly stops. The End. That is basically how every work of fiction is structured - "Once upon a time" (In the beginning), up until "The End" (Amen).
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 5
“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.
“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted. Ibid., p. 23.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The nature of evolution is that EVERY species is a transitional species. Say that life began at stage 1 & that we are currently at stage 100. Along that line we find species 20, 40, 60 & 80. Then you come up with the claim that all those are just 'kinds', and not transitionals at all. Then species 30, 50, 70 & 90 come to light - each following the exact same line of progressive evolution as predicted. But no, you continue to insist that they're just totally unique 'kinds'. When you view a continuous change of colour across the spectrum from Red to Blue, without using hard line borders & just view the colour seen at a random slot along that progress you can tell what colour you would describe it as. You can do the same with a totally different colour earlier or later in the sequence. But at which point in that sequence can you say that one colour is no longer that colour, but another colour? That is what evolution is. Fossil record are just the snapshots of unique colours. The more fossil records we find (and continue to find) just makes that spectrum of changes smoother. Only an idiot would question the correlation - as you continue to do - thus proving my case.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510371 wrote: "The Bible was inspired by God". On that I will give you partial credit, as it was certainly inspired by a BELIEF in God. A belief / faith is, by definition, something that requires no evidence of anything whatsoever as it is purely an abstract thing. It has no substance. It is purely in the mind.
As for fossils being an embarassment to Evolutionists - just where do you get that notion (silly question really - Dolt Brown)? The majority of the evidence supporting evolution is based on an ever increasing library of fossil evidence. Evolutionists see patterns forming in the fossil evidence & are able to make predictions of things that are likely to be found at certain time levels & time & time again these predictions have proved to be correct. Evidence to support Evolution is increasing every day. What evidence is there to support the Bible? None. Why? Because the Bible doesn't provide any evidence. There is no additional information. The Bible is a single document. If it were for real it would be an ongoing chronical. It would never have been completed. It supposedly itemises all the generations of Man. Then it suddenly stops. The End. That is basically how every work of fiction is structured - "Once upon a time" (In the beginning), up until "The End" (Amen).
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
Archaeology and the Bible
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to meeting those requirements.
As for fossils being an embarassment to Evolutionists - just where do you get that notion (silly question really - Dolt Brown)? The majority of the evidence supporting evolution is based on an ever increasing library of fossil evidence. Evolutionists see patterns forming in the fossil evidence & are able to make predictions of things that are likely to be found at certain time levels & time & time again these predictions have proved to be correct. Evidence to support Evolution is increasing every day. What evidence is there to support the Bible? None. Why? Because the Bible doesn't provide any evidence. There is no additional information. The Bible is a single document. If it were for real it would be an ongoing chronical. It would never have been completed. It supposedly itemises all the generations of Man. Then it suddenly stops. The End. That is basically how every work of fiction is structured - "Once upon a time" (In the beginning), up until "The End" (Amen).
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
Archaeology and the Bible
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to meeting those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510394 wrote: The nature of evolution is that EVERY species is a transitional species. Say that life began at stage 1 & that we are currently at stage 100. Along that line we find species 20, 40, 60 & 80. Then you come up with the claim that all those are just 'kinds', and not transitionals at all. Then species 30, 50, 70 & 90 come to light - each following the exact same line of progressive evolution as predicted. But no, you continue to insist that they're just totally unique 'kinds'. When you view a continuous change of colour across the spectrum from Red to Blue, without using hard line borders & just view the colour seen at a random slot along that progress you can tell what colour you would describe it as. You can do the same with a totally different colour earlier or later in the sequence. But at which point in that sequence can you say that one colour is no longer that colour, but another colour? That is what evolution is. Fossil record are just the snapshots of unique colours. The more fossil records we find (and continue to find) just makes that spectrum of changes smoother. Only an idiot would question the correlation - as you continue to do - thus proving my case.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creation, Mutation, and Variation
"Enormous," "tremendous," "staggering"—all these are adjectives used by geneticist Francisco Ayala to describe the amount of variation that can be expressed among the members of a single species.1 Human beings, for example, range from very tall to very short, very dark to very light, soprano to bass, etc., etc. This tremendous amount of variation within species has been considered a challenge to creationists. Many ask: "How could the created progenitors of each kind possess enough variability among their genes to fill the earth with all the staggering diversity we see today and to refill it after a global flood only a few thousands years ago?"
If we use Ayalas figures, there would be no problem at all. He cites 6.7 % as the average proportion of human genes that show heterozygous allelic variation, e.g., straight vs. curly hair, Ss. On the basis of "only" 6.7 % heterozygosity, Ayala calculates that the average human couple could have 102017 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number, a one followed by 2017 zeroes, is greater than the number of sand grains by the sea, the number of stars in the sky, or the atoms in the known universe (a "mere" 1080)!
A single human couple could have been created with four alleles (two for each person) at each gene position (locus). Just two alleles for vocal cord characteristics, V and v, are responsible for the variation among tenor (VV), baritone (Vv), and bass (vv) singing voices in men, and hormone influences on development result in soprano (VV), mezzo-soprano (Vv), and alto voices (vv) as expressions of the same genes in women. Furthermore, several genes are known to exist in multiple copies, and some traits, like color, weight, and intelligence, depend on the cumulative effect of genes at two or more loci. Genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in four allelic forms, so the potential for diversity is staggering indeed!
Even more exciting is the recent discovery that some genes exist as protein coding segments of DNA separated by non-coding sequences called "introns." In addition to other functions, these introns may serve as "cross-over" points for "mixing and matching" subunits in the protein product.2 If each subunit of such a gene existed in four allelic forms, consider the staggering amount of variation that one gene with three such subunits could produce! It is quite possible that such a clever—and created—mechanism is the means by which the information to produce millions of specific disease-fighting antibodies can be stored in only a few thousand genes.
Besides the positive contributors to genetic diversity described above, there is also one major negative contributor: megation. Believe it or not, orthodox evolutionists have tried to explain all the staggering variation both within and among species on the basis of these random changes in heredity called "mutations." What we know about mutations, however, makes them entirely unsuitable as any "raw materials for evolutionary progress."
As Ayala says, mutations in fruit flies have produced "extremely short wings, deformed bristles, blindness and other serious defects." Such mutations impose an increasingly heavy genetic burden or genetic load on a species. In her genetics textbook, Anna Pai makes it clear that "the word load is used intentionally to imply some sort of burden" that drags down the genetic quality of a species.3 The list of human mutational disorders, or genetic diseases, for example, has already passed 1500, and it is continuing to grow.
By elimination of the unfit, natural selection reduces the harmful effects of mutations on a population, but it cannot solve the evolutionists genetic burden problem entirely. Most mutations are recessive. That is, like the hemophilia ("bleeder's disease") gene in England's Queen Victoria, the mutant can be carried, undetected by selection, in a person (or plant or animal) with a dominant gene that masks the mutant's effect.
Time, the usual "hero of the plot" for evolutionists, only makes genetic burden worse. As time goes on, existing mutants build up to a complex equilibrium point, and new mutations are continually occurring. That is why marriage among close relatives (e.g. Cain and his sister) posed no problem early in human history, even though now, thanks to the increase in mutational load with time, such marriages are considered most unwise. Already, 1% of all children born will require some professional help with genetic problems, and that percentage doubles in first-cousin marriages.
Genetic burden, then, becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists trying to explain the enormous adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For any conceivable favorable mutation, a species must pay the price or bear the burden of more than 1000 harmful mutations of that gene. Against such a background of "genetic decay," any hypothetical favorable mutant in one gene would invariably be coupled to harmful changes in other genes. As mutational load increases with time, the survival of the species will be threatened as matings produce a greater percentage of offspring carrying serious genetic defects.1,3
[continue]
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creation, Mutation, and Variation
"Enormous," "tremendous," "staggering"—all these are adjectives used by geneticist Francisco Ayala to describe the amount of variation that can be expressed among the members of a single species.1 Human beings, for example, range from very tall to very short, very dark to very light, soprano to bass, etc., etc. This tremendous amount of variation within species has been considered a challenge to creationists. Many ask: "How could the created progenitors of each kind possess enough variability among their genes to fill the earth with all the staggering diversity we see today and to refill it after a global flood only a few thousands years ago?"
If we use Ayalas figures, there would be no problem at all. He cites 6.7 % as the average proportion of human genes that show heterozygous allelic variation, e.g., straight vs. curly hair, Ss. On the basis of "only" 6.7 % heterozygosity, Ayala calculates that the average human couple could have 102017 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number, a one followed by 2017 zeroes, is greater than the number of sand grains by the sea, the number of stars in the sky, or the atoms in the known universe (a "mere" 1080)!
A single human couple could have been created with four alleles (two for each person) at each gene position (locus). Just two alleles for vocal cord characteristics, V and v, are responsible for the variation among tenor (VV), baritone (Vv), and bass (vv) singing voices in men, and hormone influences on development result in soprano (VV), mezzo-soprano (Vv), and alto voices (vv) as expressions of the same genes in women. Furthermore, several genes are known to exist in multiple copies, and some traits, like color, weight, and intelligence, depend on the cumulative effect of genes at two or more loci. Genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in four allelic forms, so the potential for diversity is staggering indeed!
Even more exciting is the recent discovery that some genes exist as protein coding segments of DNA separated by non-coding sequences called "introns." In addition to other functions, these introns may serve as "cross-over" points for "mixing and matching" subunits in the protein product.2 If each subunit of such a gene existed in four allelic forms, consider the staggering amount of variation that one gene with three such subunits could produce! It is quite possible that such a clever—and created—mechanism is the means by which the information to produce millions of specific disease-fighting antibodies can be stored in only a few thousand genes.
Besides the positive contributors to genetic diversity described above, there is also one major negative contributor: megation. Believe it or not, orthodox evolutionists have tried to explain all the staggering variation both within and among species on the basis of these random changes in heredity called "mutations." What we know about mutations, however, makes them entirely unsuitable as any "raw materials for evolutionary progress."
As Ayala says, mutations in fruit flies have produced "extremely short wings, deformed bristles, blindness and other serious defects." Such mutations impose an increasingly heavy genetic burden or genetic load on a species. In her genetics textbook, Anna Pai makes it clear that "the word load is used intentionally to imply some sort of burden" that drags down the genetic quality of a species.3 The list of human mutational disorders, or genetic diseases, for example, has already passed 1500, and it is continuing to grow.
By elimination of the unfit, natural selection reduces the harmful effects of mutations on a population, but it cannot solve the evolutionists genetic burden problem entirely. Most mutations are recessive. That is, like the hemophilia ("bleeder's disease") gene in England's Queen Victoria, the mutant can be carried, undetected by selection, in a person (or plant or animal) with a dominant gene that masks the mutant's effect.
Time, the usual "hero of the plot" for evolutionists, only makes genetic burden worse. As time goes on, existing mutants build up to a complex equilibrium point, and new mutations are continually occurring. That is why marriage among close relatives (e.g. Cain and his sister) posed no problem early in human history, even though now, thanks to the increase in mutational load with time, such marriages are considered most unwise. Already, 1% of all children born will require some professional help with genetic problems, and that percentage doubles in first-cousin marriages.
Genetic burden, then, becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists trying to explain the enormous adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For any conceivable favorable mutation, a species must pay the price or bear the burden of more than 1000 harmful mutations of that gene. Against such a background of "genetic decay," any hypothetical favorable mutant in one gene would invariably be coupled to harmful changes in other genes. As mutational load increases with time, the survival of the species will be threatened as matings produce a greater percentage of offspring carrying serious genetic defects.1,3
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Creation, Mutation, and Variation
[continued]
As the source of adaptive variability, then, mutations (and orthodox evolution theories) fail completely. As a source of "negative variability," however, mutations serve only too well. Basing their thinking on what we observe of mutations and their net effect (genetic burden), creationists use mutations to help explain the existence of disease, genetic defects, and other examples of "negative variation" within species.
Mutations are "pathologic" (disease-causing) and only "modify what pre-exists," as French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé says, so mutations have "no final evolutionary effect."4 Instead, mutations point back to creation and to a corruption of the created order. There are 40-plus variants of hemoglobin, for example. All are variants of hemoglobin; that points back to creation. All are less effective oxygen carriers than normal hemoglobin; that points back to a corruption of the created order by time and chance.
At average mutation rates (one per million gene duplications), a human population of one billion would likely produce a thousand variant forms of hemoglobin. Lethal mutants would escape detection, and so would those that produced only minor changes, easily masked by a dominant normal gene. It is likely then, that the 40 or so recognized hemoglobin abnormalities represent only a small fraction of the genetic burden we bear at the hemoglobin position.
According to a new school of thought, "the neutral theory of molecular evolution," much of the staggering variation within species is due to mutations that are either neutral (without effect) or slightly deleterious.5 Such a theory offers no comfort to the evolutionist trying to build grander life forms from mutations, but it is an expected consequence of the creation-corruption model. Interestingly, says Kimura, the amount of variation within species is too great for selection models of evolution, but too little for the neutral theory. He suggests that recent "genetic bottlenecks" have set back the "molecular clock" that otherwise ticks off mutations at a relatively constant rate. Scientists who recognize the fossil evidence of a recent global flood are not at all surprised, of course, that data suggest a recent "genetic bottleneck" which only a few of each kind survived!
Now, what about the time factor in the creation model? How long would it take, for example, to produce all the different shades of human skin color we have today?
There are several factors that contribute subtle tones to skin colors, but all people have the same basic skin coloring agent, the protein called melanin. We all have melanin skin color, just different amounts of it. (Not a very big difference, is it?) According to Davenport's study in the West Indies, the amount of skin color we have is influenced by at least two pairs of genes, A-a and B-b.
How long would it take AaBb parents to have children with all the variations in skin color we see today? Answer: one generation. Just one generation. As shown in the genetic square, one in 16 of the children of AaBb parents would likely have the darkest possible skin color (AABB); one brother or sister in 16 would likely have the lightest skin color (aabb); less than half (6/16) would be medium-skinned like their parents (any two "capital letter" genes); and one-quarter (4/16) would be a shade darker (3 capital letter genes) and a shade lighter (1 capital letter).
MAXIMUM
VARIATION
AaBb x AaBb AB Ab aB ab
AB AA
BB AA
Bb Aa
BB Aa
Bb ONLY
DARK
AABB
Ab AA
Bb AA
bb Aa
Bb Aa
bb ONLY
MEDIUM
AAbb or
aaBB
aB Aa
BB Aa
Bb aa
BB aa
BB
ab Aa
Bb Aa
bb aa
Bb aa
bb ONLY
LIGHT
aabb
[continue]
[continued]
As the source of adaptive variability, then, mutations (and orthodox evolution theories) fail completely. As a source of "negative variability," however, mutations serve only too well. Basing their thinking on what we observe of mutations and their net effect (genetic burden), creationists use mutations to help explain the existence of disease, genetic defects, and other examples of "negative variation" within species.
Mutations are "pathologic" (disease-causing) and only "modify what pre-exists," as French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé says, so mutations have "no final evolutionary effect."4 Instead, mutations point back to creation and to a corruption of the created order. There are 40-plus variants of hemoglobin, for example. All are variants of hemoglobin; that points back to creation. All are less effective oxygen carriers than normal hemoglobin; that points back to a corruption of the created order by time and chance.
At average mutation rates (one per million gene duplications), a human population of one billion would likely produce a thousand variant forms of hemoglobin. Lethal mutants would escape detection, and so would those that produced only minor changes, easily masked by a dominant normal gene. It is likely then, that the 40 or so recognized hemoglobin abnormalities represent only a small fraction of the genetic burden we bear at the hemoglobin position.
According to a new school of thought, "the neutral theory of molecular evolution," much of the staggering variation within species is due to mutations that are either neutral (without effect) or slightly deleterious.5 Such a theory offers no comfort to the evolutionist trying to build grander life forms from mutations, but it is an expected consequence of the creation-corruption model. Interestingly, says Kimura, the amount of variation within species is too great for selection models of evolution, but too little for the neutral theory. He suggests that recent "genetic bottlenecks" have set back the "molecular clock" that otherwise ticks off mutations at a relatively constant rate. Scientists who recognize the fossil evidence of a recent global flood are not at all surprised, of course, that data suggest a recent "genetic bottleneck" which only a few of each kind survived!
Now, what about the time factor in the creation model? How long would it take, for example, to produce all the different shades of human skin color we have today?
There are several factors that contribute subtle tones to skin colors, but all people have the same basic skin coloring agent, the protein called melanin. We all have melanin skin color, just different amounts of it. (Not a very big difference, is it?) According to Davenport's study in the West Indies, the amount of skin color we have is influenced by at least two pairs of genes, A-a and B-b.
How long would it take AaBb parents to have children with all the variations in skin color we see today? Answer: one generation. Just one generation. As shown in the genetic square, one in 16 of the children of AaBb parents would likely have the darkest possible skin color (AABB); one brother or sister in 16 would likely have the lightest skin color (aabb); less than half (6/16) would be medium-skinned like their parents (any two "capital letter" genes); and one-quarter (4/16) would be a shade darker (3 capital letter genes) and a shade lighter (1 capital letter).
MAXIMUM
VARIATION
AaBb x AaBb AB Ab aB ab
AB AA
BB AA
Bb Aa
BB Aa
Bb ONLY
DARK
AABB
Ab AA
Bb AA
bb Aa
Bb Aa
bb ONLY
MEDIUM
AAbb or
aaBB
aB Aa
BB Aa
Bb aa
BB aa
BB
ab Aa
Bb Aa
bb aa
Bb aa
bb ONLY
LIGHT
aabb
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Creation, Mutation, and Variation
[continued]
What happened as the descendants of our first parents (and of Noah's family) multiplied over the earth? If those with very dark skin color (AABB) moved into the same area and/or chose to marry only those with very dark skin color, then all their children would be limited to very dark skin color. Similarly, children of parents with very light skin color (aabb) could have only very light skin, since their parents would have only "small a's and b's" to pass on. Parents with genotypes AAbb or aaBB would be limited to producing only children with medium-skin color. But where people of different backgrounds get back together again, as they do in the West Indies, then their children can once again express the full range of variation.
Except for mutational loss of skin color (albinism), then, the human gene pool would be the same now as it might have been at creation-just four genes, A, a, B, b, no more and no less. Actually, there are probably more gene loci and more alleles involved, which would make it even easier to store genetic variability in our created ancestors. As people multiplied over the earth (especially after Babel), the variation "hidden" in the genes of two average-looking parents came to visible expression in different tribes and tongues and nations.
The same would be true of the other created kinds as well: generalized ("average. looking") progenitors created with large and adaptable gene pools would break up into a variety of more specialized and adapted subtypes, as descendants of each created kind multiplied and filled the earth, both after creation and after the Flood.
There is new evidence that members of some species (including the famous peppered moth) may actually "choose" environments suitable for their trait combinations.6 If "habitat choice" behavior were created (and did not have to originate by time, chance, and random mutations!), it would reduce the genetic burden that results when only one trait expression is "fittest," and it would also greatly accelerate the process of diversification within species.
Research and new discoveries have made it increasingly easy for creationists to account for phenomenal species diversification within short periods of time. These same discoveries have only magnified problems in orthodox neo-Darwinian thinking. It is encouraging, but not surprising, therefore, that an increasing number of students and professionals in science are accepting the creation model as the more logical inference from scientific observations and principles.
The scientist who is Christian can also look forward to the end of genetic burden, when the creation, now "subjected to futility" will be "set free from its bondage to decay, and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8).
Creation, Mutation, and Variation | The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
What happened as the descendants of our first parents (and of Noah's family) multiplied over the earth? If those with very dark skin color (AABB) moved into the same area and/or chose to marry only those with very dark skin color, then all their children would be limited to very dark skin color. Similarly, children of parents with very light skin color (aabb) could have only very light skin, since their parents would have only "small a's and b's" to pass on. Parents with genotypes AAbb or aaBB would be limited to producing only children with medium-skin color. But where people of different backgrounds get back together again, as they do in the West Indies, then their children can once again express the full range of variation.
Except for mutational loss of skin color (albinism), then, the human gene pool would be the same now as it might have been at creation-just four genes, A, a, B, b, no more and no less. Actually, there are probably more gene loci and more alleles involved, which would make it even easier to store genetic variability in our created ancestors. As people multiplied over the earth (especially after Babel), the variation "hidden" in the genes of two average-looking parents came to visible expression in different tribes and tongues and nations.
The same would be true of the other created kinds as well: generalized ("average. looking") progenitors created with large and adaptable gene pools would break up into a variety of more specialized and adapted subtypes, as descendants of each created kind multiplied and filled the earth, both after creation and after the Flood.
There is new evidence that members of some species (including the famous peppered moth) may actually "choose" environments suitable for their trait combinations.6 If "habitat choice" behavior were created (and did not have to originate by time, chance, and random mutations!), it would reduce the genetic burden that results when only one trait expression is "fittest," and it would also greatly accelerate the process of diversification within species.
Research and new discoveries have made it increasingly easy for creationists to account for phenomenal species diversification within short periods of time. These same discoveries have only magnified problems in orthodox neo-Darwinian thinking. It is encouraging, but not surprising, therefore, that an increasing number of students and professionals in science are accepting the creation model as the more logical inference from scientific observations and principles.
The scientist who is Christian can also look forward to the end of genetic burden, when the creation, now "subjected to futility" will be "set free from its bondage to decay, and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8).
Creation, Mutation, and Variation | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So you prove my point, yet again, by having no answer other than yet another pasting that you know is going to be totally disregarded. Your philosophy seems to be like that of Theresa May. Say it often enough & it might just come true.
"Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, ....."
"Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, ....."
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510400 wrote: So you prove my point, yet again, by having no answer other than yet another pasting that you know is going to be totally disregarded. Your philosophy seems to be like that of Theresa May. Say it often enough & it might just come true.
Repetition is sometimes necessary for those unwilling to think for themselves and accept facts.
Repetition is sometimes necessary for those unwilling to think for themselves and accept facts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Well you certainly repeat yourself enough.
You don't think for yourself. All you repeat is Dolt Brown, who has been repeatedly revealed as a charlatan, even by his peers. You don't check any facts for yourself. He makes wild claims. You take them at face value. You don't think to check the actual evidence behind it by using such a simple tool as Google. You believe in his out of context quotes, without checking to find the rest of the quote & the context in which it was originally intended. You take a couple of mystery lists as some sort of proof of something, without the ability to say what they are proof of, other than it being a couple of lists. No mention of what it is they are supposed to have said or when or where, if at all. It is meaningless, yet you are unable to think sufficiently to evaluate this blatantly missing information.
Whenever I say anything in here it is information I have independantly researched & I provide my sources from multiple cross references. I do not repeatedly paste them. The only thing I paste are the occasional URLs so that anyone who wants to check can go & have a look. I do not need to copy & paste huge amounts of multi coloured pap in a vain effort to make it look pretty. I view everything with a critical eye. That is the nature of science. As well as seeing things proved right I also welcome seeing things proved wrong, as it means there is more to learn. By your pasting invalid arguments, using uncorroberated information dating from at least 30 years ago you further demonstrate yourself to be a total idiot.
If you want to make a pasting, by all means do so - but don't leave it at that. Continue to make the case. Discuss it. State why you believe it. State what evidence there is to back it up. Come up with independant sources. If you can't do that then it's just another case of "Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, ...".
You don't think for yourself. All you repeat is Dolt Brown, who has been repeatedly revealed as a charlatan, even by his peers. You don't check any facts for yourself. He makes wild claims. You take them at face value. You don't think to check the actual evidence behind it by using such a simple tool as Google. You believe in his out of context quotes, without checking to find the rest of the quote & the context in which it was originally intended. You take a couple of mystery lists as some sort of proof of something, without the ability to say what they are proof of, other than it being a couple of lists. No mention of what it is they are supposed to have said or when or where, if at all. It is meaningless, yet you are unable to think sufficiently to evaluate this blatantly missing information.
Whenever I say anything in here it is information I have independantly researched & I provide my sources from multiple cross references. I do not repeatedly paste them. The only thing I paste are the occasional URLs so that anyone who wants to check can go & have a look. I do not need to copy & paste huge amounts of multi coloured pap in a vain effort to make it look pretty. I view everything with a critical eye. That is the nature of science. As well as seeing things proved right I also welcome seeing things proved wrong, as it means there is more to learn. By your pasting invalid arguments, using uncorroberated information dating from at least 30 years ago you further demonstrate yourself to be a total idiot.
If you want to make a pasting, by all means do so - but don't leave it at that. Continue to make the case. Discuss it. State why you believe it. State what evidence there is to back it up. Come up with independant sources. If you can't do that then it's just another case of "Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, ...".
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510402 wrote: Well you certainly repeat yourself enough.
You don't think for yourself. All you repeat is Dolt Brown, who has been repeatedly revealed as a charlatan, even by his peers.
Who has revealed Brown as a charlatan? Actually his conclusions are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists.
You don't check any facts for yourself.
On what do you base that assertion?
He makes wild claims. You take them at face value.
His claims are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists, which is why I accept them.
You don't think to check the actual evidence behind it by using such a simple tool as Google. You believe in his out of context quotes, without checking to find the rest of the quote & the context in which it was originally intended.
I check the actual evidence behind it by believing the scientists who confirm it. What quotes have changed the meaning of the contexts?
You take a couple of mystery lists as some sort of proof of something, without the ability to say what they are proof of, other than it being a couple of lists. No mention of what it is they are supposed to have said or when or where, if at all. It is meaningless, yet you are unable to think sufficiently to evaluate this blatantly missing information.
What lists are you referring to?
Whenever I say anything in here it is information I have independantly researched & I provide my sources from multiple cross references. I do not repeatedly paste them. The only thing I paste are the occasional URLs so that anyone who wants to check can go & have a look. I do not need to copy & paste huge amounts of multi coloured pap in a vain effort to make it look pretty. I view everything with a critical eye. That is the nature of science. As well as seeing things proved right I also welcome seeing things proved wrong, as it means there is more to learn.
Good!
By your pasting invalid arguments, using uncorroberated information dating from at least 30 years ago you further demonstrate yourself to be a total idiot.
What invalid arguments? How old do facts have to be before they become non-facts?
If you want to make a pasting, by all means do so - but don't leave it at that. Continue to make the case. Discuss it. State why you believe it. State what evidence there is to back it up. Come up with independant sources. If you can't do that then it's just another case of "Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, ...".
The information speaks for itself.
You don't think for yourself. All you repeat is Dolt Brown, who has been repeatedly revealed as a charlatan, even by his peers.
Who has revealed Brown as a charlatan? Actually his conclusions are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists.
You don't check any facts for yourself.
On what do you base that assertion?
He makes wild claims. You take them at face value.
His claims are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists, which is why I accept them.
You don't think to check the actual evidence behind it by using such a simple tool as Google. You believe in his out of context quotes, without checking to find the rest of the quote & the context in which it was originally intended.
I check the actual evidence behind it by believing the scientists who confirm it. What quotes have changed the meaning of the contexts?
You take a couple of mystery lists as some sort of proof of something, without the ability to say what they are proof of, other than it being a couple of lists. No mention of what it is they are supposed to have said or when or where, if at all. It is meaningless, yet you are unable to think sufficiently to evaluate this blatantly missing information.
What lists are you referring to?
Whenever I say anything in here it is information I have independantly researched & I provide my sources from multiple cross references. I do not repeatedly paste them. The only thing I paste are the occasional URLs so that anyone who wants to check can go & have a look. I do not need to copy & paste huge amounts of multi coloured pap in a vain effort to make it look pretty. I view everything with a critical eye. That is the nature of science. As well as seeing things proved right I also welcome seeing things proved wrong, as it means there is more to learn.
Good!
By your pasting invalid arguments, using uncorroberated information dating from at least 30 years ago you further demonstrate yourself to be a total idiot.
What invalid arguments? How old do facts have to be before they become non-facts?
If you want to make a pasting, by all means do so - but don't leave it at that. Continue to make the case. Discuss it. State why you believe it. State what evidence there is to back it up. Come up with independant sources. If you can't do that then it's just another case of "Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, ...".
The information speaks for itself.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1510410 wrote: Who has revealed Brown as a charlatan? Actually his conclusions are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists.
I have previously provided you with links to many sites where he has been thoroughly debunked. The only sites you will find to support it are other looney-toon Creationist websites - in particular, the Center For Scientific Creation which, I'm sure you are aware, he founded & owns, yet he continues to cite this centre as an independent source supporting his claims. I defy you to one one single SCIENTIFIC website that in any way supports anything he says. Just who are these so called "Scientists (cue the pasting of the unrelated list of names & journals, with no cross referencing links whatsoever)?
On what do you base that assertion?
Yuo have never responded to any challenges to provide any non-Brown supportive evidence, so either you didn't check (as is my belief), or if you did check, couldn't find any.
His claims are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists, which is why I accept them.
HE SAYS they are based on the facts of science & are confirmed by scientists. THAT is why you accept them. Have you ever questioned whether or not he is actually telling the truth about these 'facts' or these 'scientists'? I very much doubt it.
I check the actual evidence behind it by believing the scientists who confirm it. What quotes have changed the meaning of the contexts?
Just where have you found these scientists to have confirmed anything (disregarding Creationist sites he links to)? I would be interested to know.
What quotes have been taken out of context? The most blatant one that jumps to mind is the Hawking one. Hawking is a world famous Atheist. The inventor of Quantum Physics. An internationally recognised supergenius. Brown takes a partial quote from one of his presentations & uses it in such a way as to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. Of course, you hadn't checked that quote. If you remember, it was me who provided you with the rest of the quote. What was you response? That the partial quote was accurate & that everything else that Hawking says is unfounded speculation. Of course, you are far more educated than Hawking on such matters.
What lists are you referring to?
How the hell can you have the face to ask that? As specified on quote #1 - the 2 unrelated lists. One of names & the other of Scientif journals. Neither list has any cross referencing between them, yet Brown implies that all of these names have supported what he says in those publications. I have challenged you on many occasions to provide cross references between them so that we may be able to see this elusive supportive evidence but you have always failed. Why? Because Brown (your only source) has also failed to provide this information. Why? Most likely because it doesn't exist. It is exactly as it appears - 2 totally unrelated lists put there for the sake of the gullible as padding.
What invalid arguments? How old do facts have to be before they become non-facts?
Facts remain facts forever. Interpretations are constantly changing once new facts come to light. That is the nature of Science. Brown, however, typical of Creationists, makes a supposition as a false premise, and refers to that as a 'fact', basing the rest of his claims on that initial non-fact. He makes claims against Evolutionists based on things that have nothing to do with Evolution - typically that everything came from nothing, or that life came from a rock. That is not the case. In fact both of those are what the Bible claims happened. Evolution has nothing to do with creation of anything. It is purely to do with the process of change of what is already there, yet he repeatedly makes claim that this is what Evolutionists believe as a 'fact'. The physics he refers to also do not hold up. The basic law of conservation of energy dictates that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. He makes claim that the waters were pushed up 20 miles at supersonic speeds. Elementary physics will show that the entire mass of the earth does not have enough energy to facilitate this. Furthermore, if it were under pressure, as he claims, the water would instantaneously turn to steam, yet he continues to base the idea of this 20 mile propellant as a 'fact'. Then there is the question of if the entire world was covered in water, just where did all that water go? He claims it as a 'fact' that all fossils were created within a matter of months in the muds of the flood, yet denies the real fact that there is a time scale of where fossils are to be found. Such as, you don't find dinosaur fossils at the same level as mammals etc., but if his claims were true, there would be fossils of all species all at the same level.
The information speaks for itself.
That much is true - except this what you paste is MIS-information. THAT is what speaks for itself. You still refuse to debate the issue. You can't just say things like "Research has shown..." or "Scientists say...". You have to back it up with independant sources - ideally different sources without any connection to the original source (i.e. the Center for Scientific Creation CANNOT be taken as being an independant source - nor can any Creationist site.
Without any intellectual debate all you continue to do is to prove what a retarded idiot you really are. Please prove me wrong in this belief - come up with some structured debate for a change.
I have previously provided you with links to many sites where he has been thoroughly debunked. The only sites you will find to support it are other looney-toon Creationist websites - in particular, the Center For Scientific Creation which, I'm sure you are aware, he founded & owns, yet he continues to cite this centre as an independent source supporting his claims. I defy you to one one single SCIENTIFIC website that in any way supports anything he says. Just who are these so called "Scientists (cue the pasting of the unrelated list of names & journals, with no cross referencing links whatsoever)?
On what do you base that assertion?
Yuo have never responded to any challenges to provide any non-Brown supportive evidence, so either you didn't check (as is my belief), or if you did check, couldn't find any.
His claims are based on the facts of science and are confirmed by scientists, which is why I accept them.
HE SAYS they are based on the facts of science & are confirmed by scientists. THAT is why you accept them. Have you ever questioned whether or not he is actually telling the truth about these 'facts' or these 'scientists'? I very much doubt it.
I check the actual evidence behind it by believing the scientists who confirm it. What quotes have changed the meaning of the contexts?
Just where have you found these scientists to have confirmed anything (disregarding Creationist sites he links to)? I would be interested to know.
What quotes have been taken out of context? The most blatant one that jumps to mind is the Hawking one. Hawking is a world famous Atheist. The inventor of Quantum Physics. An internationally recognised supergenius. Brown takes a partial quote from one of his presentations & uses it in such a way as to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. Of course, you hadn't checked that quote. If you remember, it was me who provided you with the rest of the quote. What was you response? That the partial quote was accurate & that everything else that Hawking says is unfounded speculation. Of course, you are far more educated than Hawking on such matters.
What lists are you referring to?
How the hell can you have the face to ask that? As specified on quote #1 - the 2 unrelated lists. One of names & the other of Scientif journals. Neither list has any cross referencing between them, yet Brown implies that all of these names have supported what he says in those publications. I have challenged you on many occasions to provide cross references between them so that we may be able to see this elusive supportive evidence but you have always failed. Why? Because Brown (your only source) has also failed to provide this information. Why? Most likely because it doesn't exist. It is exactly as it appears - 2 totally unrelated lists put there for the sake of the gullible as padding.
What invalid arguments? How old do facts have to be before they become non-facts?
Facts remain facts forever. Interpretations are constantly changing once new facts come to light. That is the nature of Science. Brown, however, typical of Creationists, makes a supposition as a false premise, and refers to that as a 'fact', basing the rest of his claims on that initial non-fact. He makes claims against Evolutionists based on things that have nothing to do with Evolution - typically that everything came from nothing, or that life came from a rock. That is not the case. In fact both of those are what the Bible claims happened. Evolution has nothing to do with creation of anything. It is purely to do with the process of change of what is already there, yet he repeatedly makes claim that this is what Evolutionists believe as a 'fact'. The physics he refers to also do not hold up. The basic law of conservation of energy dictates that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. He makes claim that the waters were pushed up 20 miles at supersonic speeds. Elementary physics will show that the entire mass of the earth does not have enough energy to facilitate this. Furthermore, if it were under pressure, as he claims, the water would instantaneously turn to steam, yet he continues to base the idea of this 20 mile propellant as a 'fact'. Then there is the question of if the entire world was covered in water, just where did all that water go? He claims it as a 'fact' that all fossils were created within a matter of months in the muds of the flood, yet denies the real fact that there is a time scale of where fossils are to be found. Such as, you don't find dinosaur fossils at the same level as mammals etc., but if his claims were true, there would be fossils of all species all at the same level.
The information speaks for itself.
That much is true - except this what you paste is MIS-information. THAT is what speaks for itself. You still refuse to debate the issue. You can't just say things like "Research has shown..." or "Scientists say...". You have to back it up with independant sources - ideally different sources without any connection to the original source (i.e. the Center for Scientific Creation CANNOT be taken as being an independant source - nor can any Creationist site.
Without any intellectual debate all you continue to do is to prove what a retarded idiot you really are. Please prove me wrong in this belief - come up with some structured debate for a change.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1510401 wrote: Repetition is sometimes necessary for those unwilling to think for themselves and accept facts.
Coming from you, at this point in the discussion, that is almost profound.
Coming from you, at this point in the discussion, that is almost profound.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510419 wrote: I have previously provided you with links to many sites where he has been thoroughly debunked. The only sites you will find to support it are other looney-toon Creationist websites - in particular, the Center For Scientific Creation which, I'm sure you are aware, he founded & owns, yet he continues to cite this centre as an independent source supporting his claims. I defy you to one one single SCIENTIFIC website that in any way supports anything he says. Just who are these so called "Scientists (cue the pasting of the unrelated list of names & journals, with no cross referencing links whatsoever)?
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Yuo have never responded to any challenges to provide any non-Brown supportive evidence, so either you didn't check (as is my belief), or if you did check, couldn't find any.
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
HE SAYS they are based on the facts of science & are confirmed by scientists. THAT is why you accept them. Have you ever questioned whether or not he is actually telling the truth about these 'facts' or these 'scientists'? I very much doubt it.
yes!
Just where have you found these scientists to have confirmed anything (disregarding Creationist sites he links to)? I would be interested to know.
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
What quotes have been taken out of context? The most blatant one that jumps to mind is the Hawking one. Hawking is a world famous Atheist. The inventor of Quantum Physics. An internationally recognised supergenius. Brown takes a partial quote from one of his presentations & uses it in such a way as to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. Of course, you hadn't checked that quote. If you remember, it was me who provided you with the rest of the quote. What was you response? That the partial quote was accurate & that everything else that Hawking says is unfounded speculation. Of course, you are far more educated than Hawking on such matters.
In this case you are right. Isn't he the one who said, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening?"
What lists are you referring to?
How the hell can you have the face to ask that? As specified on quote #1 - the 2 unrelated lists. One of names & the other of Scientif journals. Neither list has any cross referencing between them, yet Brown implies that all of these names have supported what he says in those publications. I have challenged you on many occasions to provide cross references between them so that we may be able to see this elusive supportive evidence but you have always failed. Why? Because Brown (your only source) has also failed to provide this information. Why? Most likely because it doesn't exist. It is exactly as it appears - 2 totally unrelated lists put there for the sake of the gullible as padding.
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
Facts remain facts forever. Interpretations are constantly changing once new facts come to light. That is the nature of Science. Brown, however, typical of Creationists, makes a supposition as a false premise, and refers to that as a 'fact', basing the rest of his claims on that initial non-fact. He makes claims against Evolutionists based on things that have nothing to do with Evolution - typically that everything came from nothing, or that life came from a rock. That is not the case.
Actually everything did come from nothing. For example before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The problem the evolutionist has is trying to explain how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause.
In fact both of those are what the Bible claims happened. Evolution has nothing to do with creation of anything. It is purely to do with the process of change of what is already there, yet he repeatedly makes claim that this is what Evolutionists believe as a 'fact'.
But scientists do say that. For example: Richard Dawkins said in his classic The Ancestor's Tale: "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
The physics he refers to also do not hold up. The basic law of conservation of energy dictates that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. He makes claim that the waters were pushed up 20 miles at supersonic speeds. Elementary physics will show that the entire mass of the earth does not have enough energy to facilitate this. Furthermore, if it were under pressure, as he claims, the water would instantaneously turn to steam, yet he continues to base the idea of this 20 mile propellant as a 'fact'.
Why do you believe it would turn to steam?
Then there is the question of if the entire world was covered in water, just where did all that water go?
You will find it in our present oceans, which cover 70% of the earth. If the world were smoothed out our present oceans would cover the earth over a mile.
He claims it as a 'fact' that all fossils were created within a matter of months in the muds of the flood, yet denies the real fact that there is a time scale of where fossils are to be found. Such as, you don't find dinosaur fossils at the same level as mammals etc., but if his claims were true, there would be fossils of all species all at the same level.
In some areas they are: Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park
The information speaks for itself.
That much is true - except this what you paste is MIS-information. THAT is what speaks for itself. You still refuse to debate the issue. You can't just say things like "Research has shown..." or "Scientists say...". You have to back it up with independant sources - ideally different sources without any connection to the original source (i.e. the Center for Scientific Creation CANNOT be taken as being an independant source - nor can any Creationist site.
Without any intellectual debate all you continue to do is to prove what a retarded idiot you really are. Please prove me wrong in this belief - come up with some structured debate for a change.
Perhaps you would do well to actually study Brown's conclusions: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Yuo have never responded to any challenges to provide any non-Brown supportive evidence, so either you didn't check (as is my belief), or if you did check, couldn't find any.
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
HE SAYS they are based on the facts of science & are confirmed by scientists. THAT is why you accept them. Have you ever questioned whether or not he is actually telling the truth about these 'facts' or these 'scientists'? I very much doubt it.
yes!
Just where have you found these scientists to have confirmed anything (disregarding Creationist sites he links to)? I would be interested to know.
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
What quotes have been taken out of context? The most blatant one that jumps to mind is the Hawking one. Hawking is a world famous Atheist. The inventor of Quantum Physics. An internationally recognised supergenius. Brown takes a partial quote from one of his presentations & uses it in such a way as to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. Of course, you hadn't checked that quote. If you remember, it was me who provided you with the rest of the quote. What was you response? That the partial quote was accurate & that everything else that Hawking says is unfounded speculation. Of course, you are far more educated than Hawking on such matters.
In this case you are right. Isn't he the one who said, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening?"
What lists are you referring to?
How the hell can you have the face to ask that? As specified on quote #1 - the 2 unrelated lists. One of names & the other of Scientif journals. Neither list has any cross referencing between them, yet Brown implies that all of these names have supported what he says in those publications. I have challenged you on many occasions to provide cross references between them so that we may be able to see this elusive supportive evidence but you have always failed. Why? Because Brown (your only source) has also failed to provide this information. Why? Most likely because it doesn't exist. It is exactly as it appears - 2 totally unrelated lists put there for the sake of the gullible as padding.
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
Facts remain facts forever. Interpretations are constantly changing once new facts come to light. That is the nature of Science. Brown, however, typical of Creationists, makes a supposition as a false premise, and refers to that as a 'fact', basing the rest of his claims on that initial non-fact. He makes claims against Evolutionists based on things that have nothing to do with Evolution - typically that everything came from nothing, or that life came from a rock. That is not the case.
Actually everything did come from nothing. For example before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The problem the evolutionist has is trying to explain how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause.
In fact both of those are what the Bible claims happened. Evolution has nothing to do with creation of anything. It is purely to do with the process of change of what is already there, yet he repeatedly makes claim that this is what Evolutionists believe as a 'fact'.
But scientists do say that. For example: Richard Dawkins said in his classic The Ancestor's Tale: "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
The physics he refers to also do not hold up. The basic law of conservation of energy dictates that for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. He makes claim that the waters were pushed up 20 miles at supersonic speeds. Elementary physics will show that the entire mass of the earth does not have enough energy to facilitate this. Furthermore, if it were under pressure, as he claims, the water would instantaneously turn to steam, yet he continues to base the idea of this 20 mile propellant as a 'fact'.
Why do you believe it would turn to steam?
Then there is the question of if the entire world was covered in water, just where did all that water go?
You will find it in our present oceans, which cover 70% of the earth. If the world were smoothed out our present oceans would cover the earth over a mile.
He claims it as a 'fact' that all fossils were created within a matter of months in the muds of the flood, yet denies the real fact that there is a time scale of where fossils are to be found. Such as, you don't find dinosaur fossils at the same level as mammals etc., but if his claims were true, there would be fossils of all species all at the same level.
In some areas they are: Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park
The information speaks for itself.
That much is true - except this what you paste is MIS-information. THAT is what speaks for itself. You still refuse to debate the issue. You can't just say things like "Research has shown..." or "Scientists say...". You have to back it up with independant sources - ideally different sources without any connection to the original source (i.e. the Center for Scientific Creation CANNOT be taken as being an independant source - nor can any Creationist site.
Without any intellectual debate all you continue to do is to prove what a retarded idiot you really are. Please prove me wrong in this belief - come up with some structured debate for a change.
Perhaps you would do well to actually study Brown's conclusions: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1510445 wrote: Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
yes!
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
In this case you are right. Isn't he the one who said, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening?"
What lists are you referring to?
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
Actually everything did come from nothing. For example before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The problem the evolutionist has is trying to explain how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause.
But scientists do say that. For example: Richard Dawkins said in his classic The Ancestor's Tale: "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Why do you believe it would turn to steam?
You will find it in our present oceans, which cover 70% of the earth. If the world were smoothed out our present oceans would cover the earth over a mile.
In some areas they are: Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park
The information speaks for itself.
Perhaps you would do well to actually study Brown's conclusions: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents
Read his stuff back in the 80s. His conclusions are crap.
It really is that simple.
And you listing of scientists and scientific journals that "support Brown's findings" is crap, as well. We have discussed that several times, so I will not go into detail, again.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
yes!
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
In this case you are right. Isn't he the one who said, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening?"
What lists are you referring to?
You will find them in the list of scientists above. Go here and check the names: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A
Actually everything did come from nothing. For example before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The problem the evolutionist has is trying to explain how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause.
But scientists do say that. For example: Richard Dawkins said in his classic The Ancestor's Tale: "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Why do you believe it would turn to steam?
You will find it in our present oceans, which cover 70% of the earth. If the world were smoothed out our present oceans would cover the earth over a mile.
In some areas they are: Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park
The information speaks for itself.
Perhaps you would do well to actually study Brown's conclusions: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents
Read his stuff back in the 80s. His conclusions are crap.
It really is that simple.
And you listing of scientists and scientific journals that "support Brown's findings" is crap, as well. We have discussed that several times, so I will not go into detail, again.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510446 wrote: Read his stuff back in the 80s. His conclusions are crap.
It really is that simple.
And you listing of scientists and scientific journals that "support Brown's findings" is crap, as well. We have discussed that several times, so I will not go into detail, again.
Your dogmatic denial of the facts is telling.
It really is that simple.
And you listing of scientists and scientific journals that "support Brown's findings" is crap, as well. We have discussed that several times, so I will not go into detail, again.
Your dogmatic denial of the facts is telling.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1510451 wrote: Your dogmatic denial of the facts is telling.
MY dogmatic denial of the facts????
You really do crack me up.
Thanks for the laugh.
I needed that.
MY dogmatic denial of the facts????
You really do crack me up.
Thanks for the laugh.
I needed that.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Right on cue - the famous 2 lists. I predicted he would paste them again - he did just that Sorry, but providing a link to where they are pasted from does not count as corroberating evidence either.
He gives a list of names, which could have been got from anywhere, and a list of publications which could also be got from anywhere. You just don't get it do you? On their own they mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. To have any meaning whatsoever the two MUST be cross referenced. Such as, "Person A. Published in Journal X in Issue #8, Page 5, on dd/mm/yyyy. Url link = www.journal.com/item.
If there WERE such references, you could bet your bottom dollar Brown would be keen to list every single one of them. Why is it, then, that he does not? Simple - BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. You cannot provide the cross referrences either, because your only source is the Bible According to Dolt Brown. You don't have the intelligence to do independent research of your own in an effort to quantify the claims.
I could just as easily paste a copy of the Phone Book & the manifest of the Science Museum's Reference Library, and it would have just as much validity. One is a random set of names. The other is a random set of books. The two are not related.
I have just proved that your answers are too predictable. You are incapable of any debate as that takes some understanding of the subject & nothing to do with copying & pasting. Brown uses wild hypotheses as 'facts' & bases everything else on this. As a result everything else is just as groundless.
As for not being able to see Evolution happening - that is a stupid argument. Evolution, by its nature, takes millions of years. If you look at the hour hand on a clock do you see it moving? No, but if you take a picture of it at 3 o'clock & come back an hour later you see that it has moved to 4 o'clock. You come back 2 hours later & you see it's at 6 o'clock. By that you know that if you had been there an hour earlier you would have seen it at 5 o'clock. But hang on, that can't be. That would mean it was transitional. The hand's not moving at all - they have to be a number of totally different clocks.
Besides - we ARE seeing evolution happening - it's just that it happens so slowly that we don't notice it in real time. We are all transitional species. The only way we can see it happen is in Time Lapse by viewing the occasional snapshot - and there is no shortage of them.
He gives a list of names, which could have been got from anywhere, and a list of publications which could also be got from anywhere. You just don't get it do you? On their own they mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. To have any meaning whatsoever the two MUST be cross referenced. Such as, "Person A. Published in Journal X in Issue #8, Page 5, on dd/mm/yyyy. Url link = www.journal.com/item.
If there WERE such references, you could bet your bottom dollar Brown would be keen to list every single one of them. Why is it, then, that he does not? Simple - BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. You cannot provide the cross referrences either, because your only source is the Bible According to Dolt Brown. You don't have the intelligence to do independent research of your own in an effort to quantify the claims.
I could just as easily paste a copy of the Phone Book & the manifest of the Science Museum's Reference Library, and it would have just as much validity. One is a random set of names. The other is a random set of books. The two are not related.
I have just proved that your answers are too predictable. You are incapable of any debate as that takes some understanding of the subject & nothing to do with copying & pasting. Brown uses wild hypotheses as 'facts' & bases everything else on this. As a result everything else is just as groundless.
As for not being able to see Evolution happening - that is a stupid argument. Evolution, by its nature, takes millions of years. If you look at the hour hand on a clock do you see it moving? No, but if you take a picture of it at 3 o'clock & come back an hour later you see that it has moved to 4 o'clock. You come back 2 hours later & you see it's at 6 o'clock. By that you know that if you had been there an hour earlier you would have seen it at 5 o'clock. But hang on, that can't be. That would mean it was transitional. The hand's not moving at all - they have to be a number of totally different clocks.
Besides - we ARE seeing evolution happening - it's just that it happens so slowly that we don't notice it in real time. We are all transitional species. The only way we can see it happen is in Time Lapse by viewing the occasional snapshot - and there is no shortage of them.
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 6
“...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates. Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.
“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them. Ibid., p. 266.
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. Ibid., p. 12.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I love it. You quote Stephen Jay Gould. That is hilarious.
Here are some more quotes from Gould:
I think that you should perhaps meditate on the third one for a while.
"When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown."
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."
Here are some more quotes from Gould:
I think that you should perhaps meditate on the third one for a while.
"When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown."
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510569 wrote: I love it. You quote Stephen Jay Gould. That is hilarious.
Here are some more quotes from Gould:
I think that you should perhaps meditate on the third one for a while.
"When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown."
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."
Here are more quotes from Glould:
Evolution Gould on Transitions
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:
“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent, Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November 1978, p. 1.
Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.
Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.
Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
“Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. Ibid., p. 12.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.
Here are some more quotes from Gould:
I think that you should perhaps meditate on the third one for a while.
"When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown."
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."
Here are more quotes from Glould:
Evolution Gould on Transitions
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:
“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent, Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November 1978, p. 1.
Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.
Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.
Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]
“Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. Ibid., p. 12.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So you seem to claiming that Gould supports Brown's claims and therefore suggest that Gould was a Creationist.
Do I have that right?
Do I have that right?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
This discussion becomes ridiculous when research is ignored. Some put great stock in wannabe scientists. Evolution is a fact welll attested to by the evidence. To quote some biblical wisdom: none are so blind as those who will not see and none are so deaf as those who will not hear.,m
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1510571 wrote: So you seem to claiming that Gould supports Brown's claims and therefore suggest that Gould was a Creationist.
Do I have that right?
No, Gould believed in evolution despite the facts, which is why he dreamed up his hopeful monster notion.
Do I have that right?
No, Gould believed in evolution despite the facts, which is why he dreamed up his hopeful monster notion.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1510576 wrote: This discussion becomes ridiculous when research is ignored. Some put great stock in wannabe scientists. Evolution is a fact welll attested to by the evidence. To quote some biblical wisdom: none are so blind as those who will not see and none are so deaf as those who will not hear.,m
True. That describes you but is not in the Bible. Evolution is not a fact and is evidence free.The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Life-Giving Blood
After 100 years, automobiles still need engine oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, power-steering fluid, and so on. Wouldn't it be great if just a single multipurpose fluid could be circulated from a central reservoir? Each part would use only the needed properties of the fluid, exclude detrimental properties, and then send it back. The new system’s worldwide impact would ensure a huge market--and academic honors--for the clever developers.
This lucrative breakthrough, however, would not be pioneering. Just such a brilliant integration of fluid properties to the diverse needs of the physical body has already been achieved in human blood--in a self-starting process beginning about 15 days after fertilization.
Heart and Blood Vessel Formation
The first human cell divides rapidly, becoming a small cluster that implants inside the uterus. Initially it flattens out to a disc only a few cells thick that is able to get nutrients by diffusion from maternal blood circulation. However, by two weeks after fertilization the disc is becoming too thick for this, so the developing embryo urgently needs a nutrient transport system.
Right on cue, blood and blood vessel formation begin at the end of the second week in both the embryo and developing placenta. Heart tubes (the precursor to the heart) form and start pumping within seven days. The cardiovascular system is the first organ system to become functional--an important factor, since every cell depends on blood to survive.
Vital Characteristics of Blood
Blood is a liquid tissue. For normal human function, blood has to be a fluid. Why? Fluids can flow, carry either suspended or dissolved solids and gases, and respond to even slight pressure changes by continuously changing shape. Blood and blood vessels, therefore, form an incredibly flexible conduit--the exact shape of a person's body at any moment--that connects the outside world to the deepest cells inside. Cellular metabolic demands are relentless. That is why nearly all of the estimated 60 trillion cells in the body--each one carrying out an average 10 million chemical reactions per second--are always close to blood vessels bringing oxygen and fuel.
Blood is made up of solid (formed) parts such as oxygen-carrying red blood cells (RBCs), disease-fighting white blood cells (WBCs), and platelets suspended in a liquid that is 92 percent water. This liquid, called plasma, has about 120 dissolved components that include oxygen, carbon dioxide, glucose, albumin, hormones, and antibodies. Sensors continuously monitor the concentrations of these items and make swift adjustments. Vital body functions like normal acid-base ratio, intracellular water content, blood’s ability to flow through vessels, and managing body heat production depend as much on correct concentrations as the correct mix of components.
Fetal Blood Production
The embryo makes RBCs first, his most necessary blood component. These distinctive cells are made by the inner lining of blood vessels in a temporary structure outside the embryo called the yolk sac, which in people is actually a "blood forming sac" that never contains yolk. This misguided name was given because it was believed to have "arisen" in a pre-human animal ancestor and because it initially contains a yellow substance.
The progenitor RBCs eventually migrate from the yolk sac to the liver and spleen, which become the lead cell-forming sites by the mid-second month of gestation. By the fifth month, bone marrow is sufficiently formed to take over for nonstop lifelong production. Interestingly, even in adulthood if the body is stressed by a shortage of RBCs, the spleen and liver can resume production as emergency backup sites.
In children, blood formation occurs in the long bones such as the upper leg and shin. In adults, it occurs mainly in the pelvis, cranium, vertebrae, and sternum. However, development, activation, and some proliferation of certain WBCs occur in the spleen, thymus gland, and lymph nodes. Normally, sensor-control mechanisms balance mature RBCs from their production to their loss--which is about 1,200,000 cells per second. How does the marrow produce these prodigious numbers of cells?
Blood Formation: A Precisely-Planned Process
Blood formation begins with a self-renewing population of pluripotent stem cells that are capable of developing into any type of blood cell lineage (RBC, WBC, or platelet). They reproduce by making exact copies of themselves called clones or daughter cells. Some daughter cells or originals remain as pluripotent stem cells, but the rest will be “committed to specific lineage pathways. Which cells stay as stem cells and which get committed is a random process. In contrast, the survival and expansion of cells in each lineage is precisely controlled by dozens of interacting chemical signals called colony stimulating factors (CSFs)--some produced in other body tissues. CSFs control numerous activities, including turning certain genes on and off at just the right time so each unique feature of the cells is made.
The marrow provides a protected microenvironment where immature cells grow on a meshwork of fat cells, large WBCs called macrophages, and cells lining the marrow. The meshwork compartmentalizes the nurturing process and also secretes vital CSFs. Proper growth is stimulated by strict regulation, in stepwise fashion, over both order and timing of when 12 major CSFs are introduced to the blood cells. Controls are so exact that concentrations of CSFs from other tissues can be as low as 10-12 molar (like one grain of salt dissolved in about 27,000 gallons of water). Amazingly, at certain steps in the process some of the maturing (or mature) blood cells themselves emit CSFs to direct their own development or even control the meshwork.
For RBCs, a crucial stimulating hormone is erythropoietin, commonly called EPO. Without EPO, no RBCs would be made. EPO is steadily circulated, keeping RBC production at the normal rate. But "normal" for a ten-year-old girl at sea level may not be "normal" for a sixty-year-old man living on a mountain. The genes with instructions for making EPO are controlled by stimulants known as hypoxia-inducible factors (whose function depends on several vital enzymes). These factors activate EPO DNA but not in response to the number of RBCs. Rather, low oxygen concentrations induce more EPO production, which normally results in rapidly rising RBC numbers. By regulating just exactly what is needed--the blood's ability to carry adequate oxygen--the optimum number of RBCs running at maximum oxygen capacity is continuously and efficiently adjusted. Therefore, it would be fitting for EPO to be produced mainly in an organ that is very sensitive to changes in blood pressures and oxygen content, such as the renal cortex of the kidney--which it is.
Integrating Blood Properties with Organ Function
The familiar biconcave shape of human RBCs bestows the highest possible membrane surface area relative to intracellular volume and oxygen saturation rate. This makes it possible for over 250 million hemoglobin molecules in each of the billions of RBCs to be oxygen-loaded in a fraction of a second. Recall that nearly all body cells are in close proximity to blood vessels. By necessity, most of these vessels are tiny capillaries, of which 40 could be put side-by-side in the diameter of a human hair. RBCs are twice the diameter of a capillary but can actually squeeze through it. How? Structural properties in the RBC's membrane allow the cell shape to be incredibly deformed and then spring back to normal. Five specialized structural proteins confer this important ability and a genetic defect in any causes diseases due to rupturing of less-flexible RBC membranes.
RBCs are themselves living tissues. It would be possible for RBCs to consume much of their oxygen payload with little left to supply other tissues. However, RBCs have enzymes to power their metabolic processes without the use of oxygen--so they consume none of their precious cargo.
Several kinds of cells, like the clear cornea and lens of the eye, need the oxygen and nutrients carried in blood but could not function properly if coated in red blood cells. This problem is overcome by a part of the eye that acts like a blood filter. Using ultrafine portals--so small as to screen out RBCs and other proteins--a crystal-clear water-based portion carries just enough dissolved oxygen and nutrients. After nourishing the cornea, the fluid is reabsorbed--through another set of tiny holes--back into the bloodstream. Cerebral spinal fluid and urine are some other ultrafiltrates of blood in which only some of blood’s properties are extracted to fill a need at a precise location.
Conclusion
From the earliest days in the mother's womb until the day of death, a person's life is in the blood. Even a person-to-person gift of blood is treasured and called "the gift of life." Human blood is indeed a gift from the Lord Jesus Christ, clearly testifying to His great creative abilities and the body’s total unity of function. The Bible says that the Lord Jesus' blood is particularly special--in fact, "precious" (1 Peter 1:19)--because it is able to redeem us and cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:9). Let us give glory "unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelation 1:5).
Made in His Image: Life-Giving Blood | The Institute for Creation Research
True. That describes you but is not in the Bible. Evolution is not a fact and is evidence free.The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Life-Giving Blood
After 100 years, automobiles still need engine oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, power-steering fluid, and so on. Wouldn't it be great if just a single multipurpose fluid could be circulated from a central reservoir? Each part would use only the needed properties of the fluid, exclude detrimental properties, and then send it back. The new system’s worldwide impact would ensure a huge market--and academic honors--for the clever developers.
This lucrative breakthrough, however, would not be pioneering. Just such a brilliant integration of fluid properties to the diverse needs of the physical body has already been achieved in human blood--in a self-starting process beginning about 15 days after fertilization.
Heart and Blood Vessel Formation
The first human cell divides rapidly, becoming a small cluster that implants inside the uterus. Initially it flattens out to a disc only a few cells thick that is able to get nutrients by diffusion from maternal blood circulation. However, by two weeks after fertilization the disc is becoming too thick for this, so the developing embryo urgently needs a nutrient transport system.
Right on cue, blood and blood vessel formation begin at the end of the second week in both the embryo and developing placenta. Heart tubes (the precursor to the heart) form and start pumping within seven days. The cardiovascular system is the first organ system to become functional--an important factor, since every cell depends on blood to survive.
Vital Characteristics of Blood
Blood is a liquid tissue. For normal human function, blood has to be a fluid. Why? Fluids can flow, carry either suspended or dissolved solids and gases, and respond to even slight pressure changes by continuously changing shape. Blood and blood vessels, therefore, form an incredibly flexible conduit--the exact shape of a person's body at any moment--that connects the outside world to the deepest cells inside. Cellular metabolic demands are relentless. That is why nearly all of the estimated 60 trillion cells in the body--each one carrying out an average 10 million chemical reactions per second--are always close to blood vessels bringing oxygen and fuel.
Blood is made up of solid (formed) parts such as oxygen-carrying red blood cells (RBCs), disease-fighting white blood cells (WBCs), and platelets suspended in a liquid that is 92 percent water. This liquid, called plasma, has about 120 dissolved components that include oxygen, carbon dioxide, glucose, albumin, hormones, and antibodies. Sensors continuously monitor the concentrations of these items and make swift adjustments. Vital body functions like normal acid-base ratio, intracellular water content, blood’s ability to flow through vessels, and managing body heat production depend as much on correct concentrations as the correct mix of components.
Fetal Blood Production
The embryo makes RBCs first, his most necessary blood component. These distinctive cells are made by the inner lining of blood vessels in a temporary structure outside the embryo called the yolk sac, which in people is actually a "blood forming sac" that never contains yolk. This misguided name was given because it was believed to have "arisen" in a pre-human animal ancestor and because it initially contains a yellow substance.
The progenitor RBCs eventually migrate from the yolk sac to the liver and spleen, which become the lead cell-forming sites by the mid-second month of gestation. By the fifth month, bone marrow is sufficiently formed to take over for nonstop lifelong production. Interestingly, even in adulthood if the body is stressed by a shortage of RBCs, the spleen and liver can resume production as emergency backup sites.
In children, blood formation occurs in the long bones such as the upper leg and shin. In adults, it occurs mainly in the pelvis, cranium, vertebrae, and sternum. However, development, activation, and some proliferation of certain WBCs occur in the spleen, thymus gland, and lymph nodes. Normally, sensor-control mechanisms balance mature RBCs from their production to their loss--which is about 1,200,000 cells per second. How does the marrow produce these prodigious numbers of cells?
Blood Formation: A Precisely-Planned Process
Blood formation begins with a self-renewing population of pluripotent stem cells that are capable of developing into any type of blood cell lineage (RBC, WBC, or platelet). They reproduce by making exact copies of themselves called clones or daughter cells. Some daughter cells or originals remain as pluripotent stem cells, but the rest will be “committed to specific lineage pathways. Which cells stay as stem cells and which get committed is a random process. In contrast, the survival and expansion of cells in each lineage is precisely controlled by dozens of interacting chemical signals called colony stimulating factors (CSFs)--some produced in other body tissues. CSFs control numerous activities, including turning certain genes on and off at just the right time so each unique feature of the cells is made.
The marrow provides a protected microenvironment where immature cells grow on a meshwork of fat cells, large WBCs called macrophages, and cells lining the marrow. The meshwork compartmentalizes the nurturing process and also secretes vital CSFs. Proper growth is stimulated by strict regulation, in stepwise fashion, over both order and timing of when 12 major CSFs are introduced to the blood cells. Controls are so exact that concentrations of CSFs from other tissues can be as low as 10-12 molar (like one grain of salt dissolved in about 27,000 gallons of water). Amazingly, at certain steps in the process some of the maturing (or mature) blood cells themselves emit CSFs to direct their own development or even control the meshwork.
For RBCs, a crucial stimulating hormone is erythropoietin, commonly called EPO. Without EPO, no RBCs would be made. EPO is steadily circulated, keeping RBC production at the normal rate. But "normal" for a ten-year-old girl at sea level may not be "normal" for a sixty-year-old man living on a mountain. The genes with instructions for making EPO are controlled by stimulants known as hypoxia-inducible factors (whose function depends on several vital enzymes). These factors activate EPO DNA but not in response to the number of RBCs. Rather, low oxygen concentrations induce more EPO production, which normally results in rapidly rising RBC numbers. By regulating just exactly what is needed--the blood's ability to carry adequate oxygen--the optimum number of RBCs running at maximum oxygen capacity is continuously and efficiently adjusted. Therefore, it would be fitting for EPO to be produced mainly in an organ that is very sensitive to changes in blood pressures and oxygen content, such as the renal cortex of the kidney--which it is.
Integrating Blood Properties with Organ Function
The familiar biconcave shape of human RBCs bestows the highest possible membrane surface area relative to intracellular volume and oxygen saturation rate. This makes it possible for over 250 million hemoglobin molecules in each of the billions of RBCs to be oxygen-loaded in a fraction of a second. Recall that nearly all body cells are in close proximity to blood vessels. By necessity, most of these vessels are tiny capillaries, of which 40 could be put side-by-side in the diameter of a human hair. RBCs are twice the diameter of a capillary but can actually squeeze through it. How? Structural properties in the RBC's membrane allow the cell shape to be incredibly deformed and then spring back to normal. Five specialized structural proteins confer this important ability and a genetic defect in any causes diseases due to rupturing of less-flexible RBC membranes.
RBCs are themselves living tissues. It would be possible for RBCs to consume much of their oxygen payload with little left to supply other tissues. However, RBCs have enzymes to power their metabolic processes without the use of oxygen--so they consume none of their precious cargo.
Several kinds of cells, like the clear cornea and lens of the eye, need the oxygen and nutrients carried in blood but could not function properly if coated in red blood cells. This problem is overcome by a part of the eye that acts like a blood filter. Using ultrafine portals--so small as to screen out RBCs and other proteins--a crystal-clear water-based portion carries just enough dissolved oxygen and nutrients. After nourishing the cornea, the fluid is reabsorbed--through another set of tiny holes--back into the bloodstream. Cerebral spinal fluid and urine are some other ultrafiltrates of blood in which only some of blood’s properties are extracted to fill a need at a precise location.
Conclusion
From the earliest days in the mother's womb until the day of death, a person's life is in the blood. Even a person-to-person gift of blood is treasured and called "the gift of life." Human blood is indeed a gift from the Lord Jesus Christ, clearly testifying to His great creative abilities and the body’s total unity of function. The Bible says that the Lord Jesus' blood is particularly special--in fact, "precious" (1 Peter 1:19)--because it is able to redeem us and cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:9). Let us give glory "unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelation 1:5).
Made in His Image: Life-Giving Blood | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Humans are 90% water. Why? Not because it is a liquid, but because we CAME from the water. It is the most abundant material on earth. An amoeba doesn't have a bloodstream. It simply has a liquid mass. That is the equivalent of a bloodstream. In the human system there are multiple forms of liquid - not just blood. Saliva, tear, sweat, digestive juices, lymphatic fluids. The list goes on & on. Your metaphor of a car is valid - except that it counters your case rather than supporting it. Just as with a car, the more complex a mechanism, the more different fluids are required. The first steam engine was merely a copper ball with a couple of pipes coming out of either side. As the steam shot out it pushed the ball around. As technology progressed & other moving parts were introduced, such as with pistons, additional lubricants were required, and so on. These day we are moving on to Electric Cars, which don't require the cooling side of thngs so much, if at all (my own car is a Hybrid, and that takes ages for the internal heating to take effect, as the engine doesn't get overly hot, and that is where most of the heating comes from).
As usual, you grasp at straws with more cherry picked quotes from Dolt Brown. An argument that will never stand up. You make claims that science proves or disproves things. That merely shows that you don't understand the first thing about science. Science, by nature, takes a theory that best fits the available evidence. As further evidence is acquired it either supports the initial theory or the theory is modified. There is no absolute proof or disproof. There are only the facts. The facts are that there are a multitude of fossils records which are found at various levels of geological eras. Each fossil level indicates advancing similarities from a preceding level to the next. There have been many instances where geologists have found such fossils & then predicted, based on their finds what they would expect to find & where, and invariably go on to find it. These are the tranitions that Creationists deny exist. They claim that each of these are unique 'kinds' that have always existed, yet they have no answer as to why dinosaur, trilobite & even human fossils are not all found at the same levels, despite the fact that their own claim being that they were all fossilised in a matter of months at the time of the Flood (although quite how that would affect fossilising sea dwelling lifeforms is beyond me).
Mountains have been (and continue to be) measured as continueing to grow, due to seismic activity. The rate of their growth has been calculated as to deduce their original ages, and it has also been demonstrated that the periods at which they would have been under the oceans are the timescales that certain lifeforms would have been present & not surprisingly, these same fossils are found at the peaks of these mountains. Yet the Creationists come up & says that they're there because the Flood covered them all. Well, the obvious question is that with such a vast amount of water having appeared from nowhere, once the Flood subsided, where did all that water go?
This is the fundamental difference between Science & Religion. Science challenges its own beliefs & findings. Religion does not. Rather, if the evidence goes against what they want to believe they refute the evidence - claim it doesn't exist, that it's faked, or has some totally irrelevant meaning.
The identical evidence that is available to Science is also available to Creationists. Scientists will analyse it & form theories based on the evidence. Creationists will merely try to crowbar anything in to fit with what they want it to mean & disregard the rest. That is not Science.
As usual, you grasp at straws with more cherry picked quotes from Dolt Brown. An argument that will never stand up. You make claims that science proves or disproves things. That merely shows that you don't understand the first thing about science. Science, by nature, takes a theory that best fits the available evidence. As further evidence is acquired it either supports the initial theory or the theory is modified. There is no absolute proof or disproof. There are only the facts. The facts are that there are a multitude of fossils records which are found at various levels of geological eras. Each fossil level indicates advancing similarities from a preceding level to the next. There have been many instances where geologists have found such fossils & then predicted, based on their finds what they would expect to find & where, and invariably go on to find it. These are the tranitions that Creationists deny exist. They claim that each of these are unique 'kinds' that have always existed, yet they have no answer as to why dinosaur, trilobite & even human fossils are not all found at the same levels, despite the fact that their own claim being that they were all fossilised in a matter of months at the time of the Flood (although quite how that would affect fossilising sea dwelling lifeforms is beyond me).
Mountains have been (and continue to be) measured as continueing to grow, due to seismic activity. The rate of their growth has been calculated as to deduce their original ages, and it has also been demonstrated that the periods at which they would have been under the oceans are the timescales that certain lifeforms would have been present & not surprisingly, these same fossils are found at the peaks of these mountains. Yet the Creationists come up & says that they're there because the Flood covered them all. Well, the obvious question is that with such a vast amount of water having appeared from nowhere, once the Flood subsided, where did all that water go?
This is the fundamental difference between Science & Religion. Science challenges its own beliefs & findings. Religion does not. Rather, if the evidence goes against what they want to believe they refute the evidence - claim it doesn't exist, that it's faked, or has some totally irrelevant meaning.
The identical evidence that is available to Science is also available to Creationists. Scientists will analyse it & form theories based on the evidence. Creationists will merely try to crowbar anything in to fit with what they want it to mean & disregard the rest. That is not Science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510637 wrote: Humans are 90% water. Why? Not because it is a liquid, but because we CAME from the water. It is the most abundant material on earth. An amoeba doesn't have a bloodstream. It simply has a liquid mass. That is the equivalent of a bloodstream. In the human system there are multiple forms of liquid - not just blood. Saliva, tear, sweat, digestive juices, lymphatic fluids. The list goes on & on. Your metaphor of a car is valid - except that it counters your case rather than supporting it. Just as with a car, the more complex a mechanism, the more different fluids are required. The first steam engine was merely a copper ball with a couple of pipes coming out of either side. As the steam shot out it pushed the ball around. As technology progressed & other moving parts were introduced, such as with pistons, additional lubricants were required, and so on. These day we are moving on to Electric Cars, which don't require the cooling side of thngs so much, if at all (my own car is a Hybrid, and that takes ages for the internal heating to take effect, as the engine doesn't get overly hot, and that is where most of the heating comes from).
As usual, you grasp at straws with more cherry picked quotes from Dolt Brown. An argument that will never stand up. You make claims that science proves or disproves things. That merely shows that you don't understand the first thing about science. Science, by nature, takes a theory that best fits the available evidence. As further evidence is acquired it either supports the initial theory or the theory is modified. There is no absolute proof or disproof. There are only the facts. The facts are that there are a multitude of fossils records which are found at various levels of geological eras. Each fossil level indicates advancing similarities from a preceding level to the next. There have been many instances where geologists have found such fossils & then predicted, based on their finds what they would expect to find & where, and invariably go on to find it. These are the tranitions that Creationists deny exist. They claim that each of these are unique 'kinds' that have always existed, yet they have no answer as to why dinosaur, trilobite & even human fossils are not all found at the same levels, despite the fact that their own claim being that they were all fossilised in a matter of months at the time of the Flood (although quite how that would affect fossilising sea dwelling lifeforms is beyond me).
Mountains have been (and continue to be) measured as continueing to grow, due to seismic activity. The rate of their growth has been calculated as to deduce their original ages, and it has also been demonstrated that the periods at which they would have been under the oceans are the timescales that certain lifeforms would have been present & not surprisingly, these same fossils are found at the peaks of these mountains. Yet the Creationists come up & says that they're there because the Flood covered them all. Well, the obvious question is that with such a vast amount of water having appeared from nowhere, once the Flood subsided, where did all that water go?
This is the fundamental difference between Science & Religion. Science challenges its own beliefs & findings. Religion does not. Rather, if the evidence goes against what they want to believe they refute the evidence - claim it doesn't exist, that it's faked, or has some totally irrelevant meaning.
The identical evidence that is available to Science is also available to Creationists. Scientists will analyse it & form theories based on the evidence. Creationists will merely try to crowbar anything in to fit with what they want it to mean & disregard the rest. That is not Science.
Interesting. The fact is no transitions have been discovered in the fossil record. You will find the Flood water in the oceans and lakes. If the earth were smoothed out, the oceans would cover the earth over a mile. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Could Earth’s Mountain Ranges Form in Less Than an Hour?
If you are surprised (or doubt) that all of earth’s major mountains ranges formed in less than an hour, then let’s begin with something easier to visualize and analyze.
The reason the events of the flood have, for centuries, remained hidden—and for many, unbelievable—is because of the flood’s magnitude. Its global extent, forces, energy, and extreme and diverse consequences were far beyond our everyday experiences, even though the flood is etched in the memory of most cultures and religions.
So let us
a. start with the main assumption on page 122,
b. never violate a law of physics,
c. consider all relevant scientific evidence (what we can see and measure today and that others can verify),
d. not be afraid to think big or follow the evidence, and
e. not be distracted by those who refuse, or are unable, to follow the above steps.
We will see many confirmations that we are on the right track, because the consequences of the flood solve hundreds of mysteries that have perplexed scientists for centuries, if not millennia. However, to do this, we must be willing to think across multiple scientific disciplines.
An Analogy. Imagine that a long, massive train lost its brakes and is steadily gaining speed (accelerating) as it races down a high mountain. Eventually, this runaway train will crash. Its many boxcars will suddenly decelerate, compress, crush, and jackknife. In this analogy, the mountain the train is racing down represents the steep slope from the suddenly upbuckled Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Tipped and crushed boxcars represent today’s compressed and buckled mountain ranges. [See, for example Figure 50 on page 117. Thousands of other examples could be given.]
The flood began with the globe encircling rupture. The escaping fountains of the great deep widened the rupture, which removed weight from the chamber floor directly below the rupture. Eventually, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge sprung upward. As shown in Figure 91 on page 164, this began the subsidence of the Pacific plate which steepened even more the slope the hydroplates slid down. Within a day,1 the Atlantic basin opened up.
Figure 236: Birth of Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Ultimate Slippery Slope. Ice is slick, especially if one is on ice skates, because ice directly under the great pressure of the thin metal blades normally turns to liquid water. Ice skaters are actually sliding on liquid water.
Imagine how fast a skater—or massive hydroplate—would slide down a mountainside the size of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, riding not on liquid water but on supercritical water (SCW)—50 times slicker than liquid water! SCW has a viscosity (frictional resistance) about one-fiftieth that of liquid water; SCW provided almost no resistance to the massive sliding hydroplates; it was much like riding a few thousand miles down a steep slope on a cushion of air.
Contrast that with the century-old problem geologists have trying to understand how 30–60-mile thick, continental plates can scrape over and plow through mantle rock, which is a solid, not a liquid. Obviously, the plates cannot. Geologists have a serious problem.
Our fictitious train has the mass of a continent and our mountain rises from the floor of the subterranean chamber, directly below the widening rupture and 60 miles below earth’s preflood surface. [See Figure 236.] Some have wondered why the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is much higher and steeper than the rest of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. It is because the Mid-Atlantic Ridge rose first and relieved much of the internal upward pressure on the rest of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.
A real runaway train would not accelerate as much as our fictitious train, because a real train has many moving, grinding parts, including metal wheels that roll noisily on metal tracks bending around curves. All of that creates friction; the faster the train, the greater the friction. However, as explained in Figure 236, the hydroplates (our real train) slid straight down the ultimate slippery slope—which was not just ice, but supercritical water, 50 times slicker than ice.2
When one compares the gigantic mass of our continental-size train (the driving force) with the almost negligible resistance from the slippery slope, friction can safely be neglected. Therefore, the speed of our fictional train depends only on gravity and the downhill slope from the center of the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge to the sunken Pacific plate.
How long was the continental-drift phase? Our fictional train accelerates faster than a steel ball rolling straight down such a slope.4 Initially, the speed is slow, but every second it increases, until resistance is met and the compression event begins. The continental-drift phase lasted no more than 24 hours.1 Figure 50 on page 117 shows one of the consequences.
How rapidly did earth’s mountains form? Although our runaway train picked up speed slowly, if, after hours of acceleration, its wheels suddenly fell off, the train would rapidly decelerate and crash. Likewise, the compression event began after most of the Atlantic had opened up. The hydroplates began to meet major resistances, ran out of lubricating water, decelerated, crushed, and buckled. Earth’s mountain ranges were pushed up in less than an hour—all with fossils of sea life on top. [See Figure 237.]
Figure 237: Timing of Events, Continental-Drift Phase. This velocity-time diagram (used frequently by engineers) allows us to estimate how rapidly mountain ranges formed. With this type of diagram, positive slopes represent acceleration, and negative slopes, deceleration. The colored areas represent distances traveled. The acceleration portion of the continental-drift phase (shown in blue) opened up the 4,000 mile wide Atlantic basin in T hours. The entire continental-drift phase lasted somewhat less than 24 hours.1 The decelerating portion (shown in red), which pushed up all of earth’s major mountain ranges, lasted less than (24 - T) hours. Researchers have estimated how much mountain building has shortened continents on various great circles. These estimates generally range between 100 and 200 miles.3 If we took the average of these two distances (150 miles) and both the acceleration and deceleration were constants, then the compression event and mountain building lasted less than an hour—or more precisely, less than 0.87 hours. If you calculate the height of the two triangles, you will see that the maximum velocity of each hydroplate was about 170 miles per hour!
This is consistent with Genesis 8:1 which says that a great wind “passed over the earth at the end of the flood. We live under an “ocean of air—our atmosphere. The extremely rapid uplift of all earth’s major mountain ranges would have displaced that atmosphere, causing great winds to flow down these rising mountains. It would have been like a global tsunami, except instead of an earthquake suddenly lifting a portion of the ocean floor and creating a tsunami (a giant water wave that travels thousands of miles), the compression event suddenly uplifted earth’s major mountain ranges and produced a great “wind that passed over the earth. Had mountains been pushed up slowly—the conventional view—that would not have happened.
Some who read that a great “wind passed over the earth at the end of the flood think that is one more reason to regard the flood account as mystical or unrealistic. Instead, gigantic events were happening that we don’t experience today. The flood account is quite accurate. In fact, the flood year is the most precisely recorded year in the Bible.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Could Earth’s Mountain Ranges Form in Less Than an Hour?
As usual, you grasp at straws with more cherry picked quotes from Dolt Brown. An argument that will never stand up. You make claims that science proves or disproves things. That merely shows that you don't understand the first thing about science. Science, by nature, takes a theory that best fits the available evidence. As further evidence is acquired it either supports the initial theory or the theory is modified. There is no absolute proof or disproof. There are only the facts. The facts are that there are a multitude of fossils records which are found at various levels of geological eras. Each fossil level indicates advancing similarities from a preceding level to the next. There have been many instances where geologists have found such fossils & then predicted, based on their finds what they would expect to find & where, and invariably go on to find it. These are the tranitions that Creationists deny exist. They claim that each of these are unique 'kinds' that have always existed, yet they have no answer as to why dinosaur, trilobite & even human fossils are not all found at the same levels, despite the fact that their own claim being that they were all fossilised in a matter of months at the time of the Flood (although quite how that would affect fossilising sea dwelling lifeforms is beyond me).
Mountains have been (and continue to be) measured as continueing to grow, due to seismic activity. The rate of their growth has been calculated as to deduce their original ages, and it has also been demonstrated that the periods at which they would have been under the oceans are the timescales that certain lifeforms would have been present & not surprisingly, these same fossils are found at the peaks of these mountains. Yet the Creationists come up & says that they're there because the Flood covered them all. Well, the obvious question is that with such a vast amount of water having appeared from nowhere, once the Flood subsided, where did all that water go?
This is the fundamental difference between Science & Religion. Science challenges its own beliefs & findings. Religion does not. Rather, if the evidence goes against what they want to believe they refute the evidence - claim it doesn't exist, that it's faked, or has some totally irrelevant meaning.
The identical evidence that is available to Science is also available to Creationists. Scientists will analyse it & form theories based on the evidence. Creationists will merely try to crowbar anything in to fit with what they want it to mean & disregard the rest. That is not Science.
Interesting. The fact is no transitions have been discovered in the fossil record. You will find the Flood water in the oceans and lakes. If the earth were smoothed out, the oceans would cover the earth over a mile. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Could Earth’s Mountain Ranges Form in Less Than an Hour?
If you are surprised (or doubt) that all of earth’s major mountains ranges formed in less than an hour, then let’s begin with something easier to visualize and analyze.
The reason the events of the flood have, for centuries, remained hidden—and for many, unbelievable—is because of the flood’s magnitude. Its global extent, forces, energy, and extreme and diverse consequences were far beyond our everyday experiences, even though the flood is etched in the memory of most cultures and religions.
So let us
a. start with the main assumption on page 122,
b. never violate a law of physics,
c. consider all relevant scientific evidence (what we can see and measure today and that others can verify),
d. not be afraid to think big or follow the evidence, and
e. not be distracted by those who refuse, or are unable, to follow the above steps.
We will see many confirmations that we are on the right track, because the consequences of the flood solve hundreds of mysteries that have perplexed scientists for centuries, if not millennia. However, to do this, we must be willing to think across multiple scientific disciplines.
An Analogy. Imagine that a long, massive train lost its brakes and is steadily gaining speed (accelerating) as it races down a high mountain. Eventually, this runaway train will crash. Its many boxcars will suddenly decelerate, compress, crush, and jackknife. In this analogy, the mountain the train is racing down represents the steep slope from the suddenly upbuckled Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Tipped and crushed boxcars represent today’s compressed and buckled mountain ranges. [See, for example Figure 50 on page 117. Thousands of other examples could be given.]
The flood began with the globe encircling rupture. The escaping fountains of the great deep widened the rupture, which removed weight from the chamber floor directly below the rupture. Eventually, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge sprung upward. As shown in Figure 91 on page 164, this began the subsidence of the Pacific plate which steepened even more the slope the hydroplates slid down. Within a day,1 the Atlantic basin opened up.
Figure 236: Birth of Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Ultimate Slippery Slope. Ice is slick, especially if one is on ice skates, because ice directly under the great pressure of the thin metal blades normally turns to liquid water. Ice skaters are actually sliding on liquid water.
Imagine how fast a skater—or massive hydroplate—would slide down a mountainside the size of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, riding not on liquid water but on supercritical water (SCW)—50 times slicker than liquid water! SCW has a viscosity (frictional resistance) about one-fiftieth that of liquid water; SCW provided almost no resistance to the massive sliding hydroplates; it was much like riding a few thousand miles down a steep slope on a cushion of air.
Contrast that with the century-old problem geologists have trying to understand how 30–60-mile thick, continental plates can scrape over and plow through mantle rock, which is a solid, not a liquid. Obviously, the plates cannot. Geologists have a serious problem.
Our fictitious train has the mass of a continent and our mountain rises from the floor of the subterranean chamber, directly below the widening rupture and 60 miles below earth’s preflood surface. [See Figure 236.] Some have wondered why the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is much higher and steeper than the rest of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. It is because the Mid-Atlantic Ridge rose first and relieved much of the internal upward pressure on the rest of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.
A real runaway train would not accelerate as much as our fictitious train, because a real train has many moving, grinding parts, including metal wheels that roll noisily on metal tracks bending around curves. All of that creates friction; the faster the train, the greater the friction. However, as explained in Figure 236, the hydroplates (our real train) slid straight down the ultimate slippery slope—which was not just ice, but supercritical water, 50 times slicker than ice.2
When one compares the gigantic mass of our continental-size train (the driving force) with the almost negligible resistance from the slippery slope, friction can safely be neglected. Therefore, the speed of our fictional train depends only on gravity and the downhill slope from the center of the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge to the sunken Pacific plate.
How long was the continental-drift phase? Our fictional train accelerates faster than a steel ball rolling straight down such a slope.4 Initially, the speed is slow, but every second it increases, until resistance is met and the compression event begins. The continental-drift phase lasted no more than 24 hours.1 Figure 50 on page 117 shows one of the consequences.
How rapidly did earth’s mountains form? Although our runaway train picked up speed slowly, if, after hours of acceleration, its wheels suddenly fell off, the train would rapidly decelerate and crash. Likewise, the compression event began after most of the Atlantic had opened up. The hydroplates began to meet major resistances, ran out of lubricating water, decelerated, crushed, and buckled. Earth’s mountain ranges were pushed up in less than an hour—all with fossils of sea life on top. [See Figure 237.]
Figure 237: Timing of Events, Continental-Drift Phase. This velocity-time diagram (used frequently by engineers) allows us to estimate how rapidly mountain ranges formed. With this type of diagram, positive slopes represent acceleration, and negative slopes, deceleration. The colored areas represent distances traveled. The acceleration portion of the continental-drift phase (shown in blue) opened up the 4,000 mile wide Atlantic basin in T hours. The entire continental-drift phase lasted somewhat less than 24 hours.1 The decelerating portion (shown in red), which pushed up all of earth’s major mountain ranges, lasted less than (24 - T) hours. Researchers have estimated how much mountain building has shortened continents on various great circles. These estimates generally range between 100 and 200 miles.3 If we took the average of these two distances (150 miles) and both the acceleration and deceleration were constants, then the compression event and mountain building lasted less than an hour—or more precisely, less than 0.87 hours. If you calculate the height of the two triangles, you will see that the maximum velocity of each hydroplate was about 170 miles per hour!
This is consistent with Genesis 8:1 which says that a great wind “passed over the earth at the end of the flood. We live under an “ocean of air—our atmosphere. The extremely rapid uplift of all earth’s major mountain ranges would have displaced that atmosphere, causing great winds to flow down these rising mountains. It would have been like a global tsunami, except instead of an earthquake suddenly lifting a portion of the ocean floor and creating a tsunami (a giant water wave that travels thousands of miles), the compression event suddenly uplifted earth’s major mountain ranges and produced a great “wind that passed over the earth. Had mountains been pushed up slowly—the conventional view—that would not have happened.
Some who read that a great “wind passed over the earth at the end of the flood think that is one more reason to regard the flood account as mystical or unrealistic. Instead, gigantic events were happening that we don’t experience today. The flood account is quite accurate. In fact, the flood year is the most precisely recorded year in the Bible.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Could Earth’s Mountain Ranges Form in Less Than an Hour?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ignoring the usual paste (as usual), there is a wealth of records of transitional fossils. There are more transitional fossils being found all the time. The problem is that the Creationists will never accept them for what they clearly are, but insist that they are merely newly discovered 'kinds'. The fact that these new 'kinds' always fall precisely between 2 other unique 'kinds' on the rungs of the geological ladder and that these unique 'kinds also have traits of both of those other unique 'kinds' doesn't come into it. They then make claim that there are no transitional records found - until another one is found - then lo & behold, it becomes yet another unique 'kind'.
The fact remains that you do not get fossil of dinosaurs & mammals at the same geological level. The fact remains is that mountains are being recorded as growing at a predictable rate. The fossils found within these mountains are consistent with these growth rates. They fall under all the criteria for Science. Observe, Theorise, Predict. If the notion that Brown puts forward had any credibility, then all mountains would be made of igneous rocks. However, they are not. The vast majority of them are sedimentary - many of limestone - a sedimentary rock formed from millions of years of layered microbial sea creatures.
The fact remains that you do not get fossil of dinosaurs & mammals at the same geological level. The fact remains is that mountains are being recorded as growing at a predictable rate. The fossils found within these mountains are consistent with these growth rates. They fall under all the criteria for Science. Observe, Theorise, Predict. If the notion that Brown puts forward had any credibility, then all mountains would be made of igneous rocks. However, they are not. The vast majority of them are sedimentary - many of limestone - a sedimentary rock formed from millions of years of layered microbial sea creatures.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510708 wrote: Ignoring the usual paste (as usual), there is a wealth of records of transitional fossils. There are more transitional fossils being found all the time. The problem is that the Creationists will never accept them for what they clearly are, but insist that they are merely newly discovered 'kinds'. The fact that these new 'kinds' always fall precisely between 2 other unique 'kinds' on the rungs of the geological ladder and that these unique 'kinds also have traits of both of those other unique 'kinds' doesn't come into it. They then make claim that there are no transitional records found - until another one is found - then lo & behold, it becomes yet another unique 'kind'.
Where are those transitional fossils. Apparently scientists are unable to find them:
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research
The fact remains that you do not get fossil of dinosaurs & mammals at the same geological level.
Not a fact: Devils, Dinosaurs, and Squirrel Fossils
The concept of dinosaurs living in a distant time populated by unique and now mostly extinct plants and animals has captured generations of students and moviegoers, but actual fossil finds keep contradicting this view. More and more they seem to paint a biblical picture of dinosaurs and various mammals created and alive at the same time.
A 2013 Acts & Facts article described an intriguing Chinese fossil that broke with the conventional secular scene.1 The fossil looked so similar to today’s Tasmanian devil that one wonders why scientists didn’t simply name it as such. Instead, they called it Repenomamus robustus. After 130 million supposed years of natural environments culling a constant supply of mutated variants, why did Repenomamus not evolve one new body part or function? Perhaps something other than the actual fossil discouraged secular scientists from simply calling it like it appears—a fossilized Tasmanian devil with a baby Psittacosaurus in its stomach.
Similarly, a recent ICR Creation Science Update reported six newly discovered squirrel-like mammal fossils found in dinosaur fossil-containing rock layers in China.2 Researchers grouped their finds under a new name, Euharamiyida, but this fancy title merely cloaks plain old squirrels—found in Jurassic layers.
Advocates of evolution typically assert that smaller mammals in this supposed Age of Reptiles evolved into today’s larger mammals like whales, elk, and bears. But if the global Flood really happened, then we would expect the initial tsunami-like waves of sediment-laden water to deposit sea creatures in the lower layers. Then, in later months, the Flood would bury dinosaurs, mammals, lake or swamp-loving plants, reptiles, fish, clams, insects, and birds in upper layers. In this model, the mammals buried with dinosaurs were relatively small not because they were waiting to evolve into larger forms but because they lived in vast pre-Flood lowland swamps that elk, bears, and people avoided.
It comes as no surprise that the ever-increasing discoveries of mammal fossils in rocks that also contain dinosaur fossils show an ever-widening diversity of swamp-friendly mammal forms. For example, small shrew-like mammals that books and museums often show with dinosaur fossils closely resemble treeshrews that thrive today in southeast Asia’s tropical forests.
Researchers in 2006 described a fossil they named Castorocauda. They found it in a sedimentary layer mixed with pterosaurs, insects, amphibians, a dinosaur, and a gastropod. It “has a broad, flattened, partly scaly tail analogous to that of modern beavers.3 Maybe it was a beaver.
Other researchers recently described their unexpected discovery of rac****-size mammal tracks right beside dinosaur tracks at Angola’s Catoca diamond mine.4 To this author’s admittedly non-expert eye, the five-toed tracks are hard to distinguish from those made by opossums that walk with their thumbs pointing inward.
Finally, a mammal skull from Madagascar’s dinosaur rocks, when artistically fleshed out, looks like a 20-pound rodent. An article summarizing the find called it “a groundhog-like animal, three times to size of today’s adult groundhogs.5 They named it Vintana, but perhaps should have named it “mega-groundhog.
The unfolding story of amazing mammal diversity in dinosaur-laden rocks does not shock Flood geologists. Those who accept the Genesis account of Earth history expect tropical mammal fossils with dinosaurs—including varieties in squirrel, treeshrew, beaver, Tasmanian devil, and other rodent kinds—that look so similar to today’s basic created mammal kinds.
Devils, Dinosaurs, and Squirrel Fossils | The Institute for Creation Research
The fact remains is that mountains are being recorded as growing at a predictable rate. The fossils found within these mountains are consistent with these growth rates. They fall under all the criteria for Science. Observe, Theorise, Predict. If the notion that Brown puts forward had any credibility, then all mountains would be made of igneous rocks. However, they are not. The vast majority of them are sedimentary - many of limestone - a sedimentary rock formed from millions of years of layered microbial sea creatures.
False. Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock
Fresh tissues continue to be found in supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils. These un-replaced, un-mineralized, still-soft tissues come from animals or plants that were preserved by some catastrophic event.1 Each specimen looks young, and a direct inference is that its host rock must also be dated as thousands, not millions, of years old. And the fresher the meat, the more ridiculous are the evolution-inspired claims of great antiquity for the rock in which it was discovered.
These tissue finds are typically accompanied, in either the technical literature or science news, by the phrase "remarkable preservation." If one is to believe in the great ages assigned to these artifacts, then the quality of preservation is beyond "remarkable"--it is not scientifically possible in such a context. This is, of course, why authorities increasingly offer assurances that soft tissues, despite what is known about their decay rates, can somehow be preserved for millions of years.
For example, Melanie Mormile of Missouri University recently told Discovery News that when other researchers recovered intact DNA from bacteria trapped in "419 million-year-old" salt deposits, this showed "that these organisms can somehow survive for these amazing amounts of time."2 A similar assertion came in a recent airing of CBS News' 60 Minutes. Reporter Lesley Stahl interviewed Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who proved beyond any reasonable doubt in early 2009 that soft tissues, including several different proteins like collagen, had been extracted from a hadrosaur.3 At one point, Schweitzer showed Stahl soft tissue from a Tyrannosaur. Stahl then commented, "It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old."4 Stahl's statement that it is "impossible" makes more sense than the implied assurance from Schweitzer that these discoveries are somehow indeed possible in the context of "80 million years."
A more recent finding was claimed to be the "highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record."5 Paleontologists found intact, mostly desiccated muscle--complete with blood-filled vessels--in a fossilized salamander that had been removed from the Ribesalbes Lagerstatte deposit near Castellon in northeast Spain. This geologic formation probably resulted from a local, explosive event.
Reporting in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the researchers made it quite clear that "the detail revealed by TEM imaging unequivocally identifies the organic remains as fossilized musculature from the salamander itself."6 They did not comment on the trouble these tissues bring to evolution's assumption of deep time, but their silence regarding the "elephant in the room" question of how a "fresh" fossilized salamander could exist after millions of years does not diminish the question's relevance.
When it comes to evidence that earth's igneous rocks are young, ICR-sponsored research found it in spades in the form of an abundance of trapped helium in granites and still-ticking carbon-14 clocks in diamonds.7 Now, when it comes to scientific evidence that sedimentary rocks are much younger than evolutionary scientists claim, there is perhaps no clearer message than that provided by fresh tissues in fossils.
Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock | The Institute for Creation Research
Where are those transitional fossils. Apparently scientists are unable to find them:
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research
The fact remains that you do not get fossil of dinosaurs & mammals at the same geological level.
Not a fact: Devils, Dinosaurs, and Squirrel Fossils
The concept of dinosaurs living in a distant time populated by unique and now mostly extinct plants and animals has captured generations of students and moviegoers, but actual fossil finds keep contradicting this view. More and more they seem to paint a biblical picture of dinosaurs and various mammals created and alive at the same time.
A 2013 Acts & Facts article described an intriguing Chinese fossil that broke with the conventional secular scene.1 The fossil looked so similar to today’s Tasmanian devil that one wonders why scientists didn’t simply name it as such. Instead, they called it Repenomamus robustus. After 130 million supposed years of natural environments culling a constant supply of mutated variants, why did Repenomamus not evolve one new body part or function? Perhaps something other than the actual fossil discouraged secular scientists from simply calling it like it appears—a fossilized Tasmanian devil with a baby Psittacosaurus in its stomach.
Similarly, a recent ICR Creation Science Update reported six newly discovered squirrel-like mammal fossils found in dinosaur fossil-containing rock layers in China.2 Researchers grouped their finds under a new name, Euharamiyida, but this fancy title merely cloaks plain old squirrels—found in Jurassic layers.
Advocates of evolution typically assert that smaller mammals in this supposed Age of Reptiles evolved into today’s larger mammals like whales, elk, and bears. But if the global Flood really happened, then we would expect the initial tsunami-like waves of sediment-laden water to deposit sea creatures in the lower layers. Then, in later months, the Flood would bury dinosaurs, mammals, lake or swamp-loving plants, reptiles, fish, clams, insects, and birds in upper layers. In this model, the mammals buried with dinosaurs were relatively small not because they were waiting to evolve into larger forms but because they lived in vast pre-Flood lowland swamps that elk, bears, and people avoided.
It comes as no surprise that the ever-increasing discoveries of mammal fossils in rocks that also contain dinosaur fossils show an ever-widening diversity of swamp-friendly mammal forms. For example, small shrew-like mammals that books and museums often show with dinosaur fossils closely resemble treeshrews that thrive today in southeast Asia’s tropical forests.
Researchers in 2006 described a fossil they named Castorocauda. They found it in a sedimentary layer mixed with pterosaurs, insects, amphibians, a dinosaur, and a gastropod. It “has a broad, flattened, partly scaly tail analogous to that of modern beavers.3 Maybe it was a beaver.
Other researchers recently described their unexpected discovery of rac****-size mammal tracks right beside dinosaur tracks at Angola’s Catoca diamond mine.4 To this author’s admittedly non-expert eye, the five-toed tracks are hard to distinguish from those made by opossums that walk with their thumbs pointing inward.
Finally, a mammal skull from Madagascar’s dinosaur rocks, when artistically fleshed out, looks like a 20-pound rodent. An article summarizing the find called it “a groundhog-like animal, three times to size of today’s adult groundhogs.5 They named it Vintana, but perhaps should have named it “mega-groundhog.
The unfolding story of amazing mammal diversity in dinosaur-laden rocks does not shock Flood geologists. Those who accept the Genesis account of Earth history expect tropical mammal fossils with dinosaurs—including varieties in squirrel, treeshrew, beaver, Tasmanian devil, and other rodent kinds—that look so similar to today’s basic created mammal kinds.
Devils, Dinosaurs, and Squirrel Fossils | The Institute for Creation Research
The fact remains is that mountains are being recorded as growing at a predictable rate. The fossils found within these mountains are consistent with these growth rates. They fall under all the criteria for Science. Observe, Theorise, Predict. If the notion that Brown puts forward had any credibility, then all mountains would be made of igneous rocks. However, they are not. The vast majority of them are sedimentary - many of limestone - a sedimentary rock formed from millions of years of layered microbial sea creatures.
False. Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock
Fresh tissues continue to be found in supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils. These un-replaced, un-mineralized, still-soft tissues come from animals or plants that were preserved by some catastrophic event.1 Each specimen looks young, and a direct inference is that its host rock must also be dated as thousands, not millions, of years old. And the fresher the meat, the more ridiculous are the evolution-inspired claims of great antiquity for the rock in which it was discovered.
These tissue finds are typically accompanied, in either the technical literature or science news, by the phrase "remarkable preservation." If one is to believe in the great ages assigned to these artifacts, then the quality of preservation is beyond "remarkable"--it is not scientifically possible in such a context. This is, of course, why authorities increasingly offer assurances that soft tissues, despite what is known about their decay rates, can somehow be preserved for millions of years.
For example, Melanie Mormile of Missouri University recently told Discovery News that when other researchers recovered intact DNA from bacteria trapped in "419 million-year-old" salt deposits, this showed "that these organisms can somehow survive for these amazing amounts of time."2 A similar assertion came in a recent airing of CBS News' 60 Minutes. Reporter Lesley Stahl interviewed Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who proved beyond any reasonable doubt in early 2009 that soft tissues, including several different proteins like collagen, had been extracted from a hadrosaur.3 At one point, Schweitzer showed Stahl soft tissue from a Tyrannosaur. Stahl then commented, "It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old."4 Stahl's statement that it is "impossible" makes more sense than the implied assurance from Schweitzer that these discoveries are somehow indeed possible in the context of "80 million years."
A more recent finding was claimed to be the "highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record."5 Paleontologists found intact, mostly desiccated muscle--complete with blood-filled vessels--in a fossilized salamander that had been removed from the Ribesalbes Lagerstatte deposit near Castellon in northeast Spain. This geologic formation probably resulted from a local, explosive event.
Reporting in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the researchers made it quite clear that "the detail revealed by TEM imaging unequivocally identifies the organic remains as fossilized musculature from the salamander itself."6 They did not comment on the trouble these tissues bring to evolution's assumption of deep time, but their silence regarding the "elephant in the room" question of how a "fresh" fossilized salamander could exist after millions of years does not diminish the question's relevance.
When it comes to evidence that earth's igneous rocks are young, ICR-sponsored research found it in spades in the form of an abundance of trapped helium in granites and still-ticking carbon-14 clocks in diamonds.7 Now, when it comes to scientific evidence that sedimentary rocks are much younger than evolutionary scientists claim, there is perhaps no clearer message than that provided by fresh tissues in fossils.
Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just a few, of thousands...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
Will you ever start thinking for yourself instead of simply pasting loads & loads of interminal crap. No-one takes any notice of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
Will you ever start thinking for yourself instead of simply pasting loads & loads of interminal crap. No-one takes any notice of it.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510714 wrote: Just a few, of thousands...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
Will you ever start thinking for yourself instead of simply pasting loads & loads of interminal crap. No-one takes any notice of it.
Where are the transitions in your list? All I see is complete life forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
Will you ever start thinking for yourself instead of simply pasting loads & loads of interminal crap. No-one takes any notice of it.
Where are the transitions in your list? All I see is complete life forms.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1510716 wrote: Where are the transitions in your list? All I see is complete life forms.
Exactly what I predicted you'd say. Provide the transitionary forms, and a Creationist declares them as unique 'kinds' - totally oblivious to the smooth pattern of changes between the previous level & the next level. When others are found to fill the gaps between them, once again, they miraculously become yet another new complete life form.
Ok - lets flip this around. Describe to me exactly what you would describe as a transitional species. None of the crap about kinds or anything like that. Working on the assumption that there were to be one, describe how it would appear - and I will be able to find you an instance to fit that description.
Addendum - Remembering also that this must be a species that falls within the Geological ladder.
Exactly what I predicted you'd say. Provide the transitionary forms, and a Creationist declares them as unique 'kinds' - totally oblivious to the smooth pattern of changes between the previous level & the next level. When others are found to fill the gaps between them, once again, they miraculously become yet another new complete life form.
Ok - lets flip this around. Describe to me exactly what you would describe as a transitional species. None of the crap about kinds or anything like that. Working on the assumption that there were to be one, describe how it would appear - and I will be able to find you an instance to fit that description.
Addendum - Remembering also that this must be a species that falls within the Geological ladder.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510719 wrote: Exactly what I predicted you'd say. Provide the transitionary forms, and a Creationist declares them as unique 'kinds' - totally oblivious to the smooth pattern of changes between the previous level & the next level. When others are found to fill the gaps between them, once again, they miraculously become yet another new complete life form.
Ok - lets flip this around. Describe to me exactly what you would describe as a transitional species. None of the crap about kinds or anything like that. Working on the assumption that there were to be one, describe how it would appear - and I will be able to find you an instance to fit that description.
Addendum - Remembering also that this must be a species that falls within the Geological ladder.
I can only repeat what I shared before: The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research
Ok - lets flip this around. Describe to me exactly what you would describe as a transitional species. None of the crap about kinds or anything like that. Working on the assumption that there were to be one, describe how it would appear - and I will be able to find you an instance to fit that description.
Addendum - Remembering also that this must be a species that falls within the Geological ladder.
I can only repeat what I shared before: The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I thought at first you were actually going to make a post there without using pasting - no surprise there then.
First of all the model predictions listed HAVE been borne out - Creationists simply won't recognise the evidence though.
Secondly, as usual, as with all Creationists, you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding of how Evolution works. The Creationist view is as a pipe. It continues for a while, and then the pipe segments suddenly change to become a different type of pipe, and then another, etc. This gives rise to the common phrase among Creationists that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, or claims that Evolutionists say that a dog can suddenly give birth to a non-dog. This is NOT what Evolution is all about. Evolution is more like a tree. the trunk grows up & then divides into other branches. Those branches further divide into more branches. The Creationist's interpretation of this is that one of these multiple sub-branches should suddenly be expected to turn into one of the other sub-branches.
You first claim that Trilobytes have no previous transitionary ancestry. Well, you're wrong there. Although there are not so many available, this is because this was before they evolved outer shells, and as we know, soft cells don't often get a chance to fossilise - however, they are far from unknown.
https://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm
Next you claim that there is no transitionary ancestry for fish. The same case is so. After all, what do you think a Trilobyte is, if not a sort of fish? There are fossil record of worms. Worms with heads. Worms with gills. Worms with fins. Worms with eyes. At what stage do these all come together so much that they cease to be recognised simply as a worm but as a primitive fish? According to the Creationists, never, because they are all supposedly unique species - even thought the geological ladder shows them appearing millions of years apart.
https://www.thoughtco.com/500-million-y ... on-1093316
You then go on to claim that Dragonflies suddenly appeared from nowhere. Well, sorry - I got news for you again. Dragonflies were much, much later in the insectivorous evolutionary tree - preceded by a multitude of other ground dwelling insects which later became airborn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects
There you go - three different independent sources supporting what I say. You have still to produce any other source than Dolt Brown.
First of all the model predictions listed HAVE been borne out - Creationists simply won't recognise the evidence though.
Secondly, as usual, as with all Creationists, you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding of how Evolution works. The Creationist view is as a pipe. It continues for a while, and then the pipe segments suddenly change to become a different type of pipe, and then another, etc. This gives rise to the common phrase among Creationists that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, or claims that Evolutionists say that a dog can suddenly give birth to a non-dog. This is NOT what Evolution is all about. Evolution is more like a tree. the trunk grows up & then divides into other branches. Those branches further divide into more branches. The Creationist's interpretation of this is that one of these multiple sub-branches should suddenly be expected to turn into one of the other sub-branches.
You first claim that Trilobytes have no previous transitionary ancestry. Well, you're wrong there. Although there are not so many available, this is because this was before they evolved outer shells, and as we know, soft cells don't often get a chance to fossilise - however, they are far from unknown.
https://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm
Next you claim that there is no transitionary ancestry for fish. The same case is so. After all, what do you think a Trilobyte is, if not a sort of fish? There are fossil record of worms. Worms with heads. Worms with gills. Worms with fins. Worms with eyes. At what stage do these all come together so much that they cease to be recognised simply as a worm but as a primitive fish? According to the Creationists, never, because they are all supposedly unique species - even thought the geological ladder shows them appearing millions of years apart.
https://www.thoughtco.com/500-million-y ... on-1093316
You then go on to claim that Dragonflies suddenly appeared from nowhere. Well, sorry - I got news for you again. Dragonflies were much, much later in the insectivorous evolutionary tree - preceded by a multitude of other ground dwelling insects which later became airborn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects
There you go - three different independent sources supporting what I say. You have still to produce any other source than Dolt Brown.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart excellent posts. I go along with several theologians including sSpong who show us that liberalism is simply a gentile heresy. Not in the Bible. So. Neither is epilepsy ()demon possession) antibiotidcs, nuclear weapons,l AIDS, and even cars and trucks and thousands of others. Ever get the feeling the scientissts are talking to a brick wall. I find literalism in the Bible nothing more than "Iwant it that way like Dolt Brown. Here again is the security need in spite of the reality.. Of course they are not perfect but at least they are self correcting. Literalism still lives in the ancient past.,
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1510726 wrote: I thought at first you were actually going to make a post there without using pasting - no surprise there then.
First of all the model predictions listed HAVE been borne out - Creationists simply won't recognise the evidence though.
Secondly, as usual, as with all Creationists, you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding of how Evolution works. The Creationist view is as a pipe. It continues for a while, and then the pipe segments suddenly change to become a different type of pipe, and then another, etc. This gives rise to the common phrase among Creationists that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, or claims that Evolutionists say that a dog can suddenly give birth to a non-dog. This is NOT what Evolution is all about. Evolution is more like a tree. the trunk grows up & then divides into other branches. Those branches further divide into more branches. The Creationist's interpretation of this is that one of these multiple sub-branches should suddenly be expected to turn into one of the other sub-branches.
You first claim that Trilobytes have no previous transitionary ancestry. Well, you're wrong there. Although there are not so many available, this is because this was before they evolved outer shells, and as we know, soft cells don't often get a chance to fossilise - however, they are far from unknown.
https://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm
Next you claim that there is no transitionary ancestry for fish. The same case is so. After all, what do you think a Trilobyte is, if not a sort of fish? There are fossil record of worms. Worms with heads. Worms with gills. Worms with fins. Worms with eyes. At what stage do these all come together so much that they cease to be recognised simply as a worm but as a primitive fish? According to the Creationists, never, because they are all supposedly unique species - even thought the geological ladder shows them appearing millions of years apart.
https://www.thoughtco.com/500-million-y ... on-1093316
You then go on to claim that Dragonflies suddenly appeared from nowhere. Well, sorry - I got news for you again. Dragonflies were much, much later in the insectivorous evolutionary tree - preceded by a multitude of other ground dwelling insects which later became airborn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects
There you go - three different independent sources supporting what I say. You have still to produce any other source than Dolt Brown.
Evidence free assertions including your links. Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Extremely Ugly Seaworm Shows Extreme Non-Evolution
A Bobbit worm is an omnivorous predatory sea worm that, while only a few fingers thick, can grow 10 feet long. It submerges its many segments beneath sandy sea bottoms. Lying still with its fanged jaws ready, it waits for any creature to trip its disguised antennae. In an instant it grabs, drugs, and drags its prey underground to digest it. New evidence supports the idea that special creation, not evolution, explains this unique worm's body construction.
Fossil experts described big Bobbit-worm jaws in Devonian rocks from Ontario. Living examples of this creepy creature are called "polychaete" worms. The study authors wrote, "This demonstrates that polychaete gigantism was already a phenomenon in the Palaeozoic, some 400 million years ago."1
In the evolutionary view, Bobbit worms have not evolved in 400 million years. How could it have avoided relentless and inevitable mutation accumulation? Mutations should have obliterated or at least altered this wacky worm. How could no evolution occur in Bobbit-worm jaw structure during the same time span that supposedly saw such dramatic body reorganization as armored fishes transforming into air-breathing armadillos?
Flood geologists attribute this and similar fossils from low-lying strata to the early stages of Noah's Flood only thousands of years ago. The first creatures that died in the Flood were marine animals. Many of them were slow-moving, like the Bobbit-worm. Possibly the fossilized heavily armored fish, clams, crinoids (sea lilies), and trilobites could not escape the Flood waters that continued their tumultuous torrents month after month during the Flood year.2
An utterly catastrophic Flood explains fossil formation in general with sediments that completely bury sea creatures on top of continents all over the world. And a recent Flood explains why fossils have none of evolution's expected body changes. Living Bobbit worms are virtually identical to their fossil counterparts. These new fossils from Canada show that Bobbit worms never evolved. It's just as though God created them to reproduce according to their well-designed but creepy kind.
Extremely Ugly Seaworm Shows Extreme Non-Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
First of all the model predictions listed HAVE been borne out - Creationists simply won't recognise the evidence though.
Secondly, as usual, as with all Creationists, you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding of how Evolution works. The Creationist view is as a pipe. It continues for a while, and then the pipe segments suddenly change to become a different type of pipe, and then another, etc. This gives rise to the common phrase among Creationists that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, or claims that Evolutionists say that a dog can suddenly give birth to a non-dog. This is NOT what Evolution is all about. Evolution is more like a tree. the trunk grows up & then divides into other branches. Those branches further divide into more branches. The Creationist's interpretation of this is that one of these multiple sub-branches should suddenly be expected to turn into one of the other sub-branches.
You first claim that Trilobytes have no previous transitionary ancestry. Well, you're wrong there. Although there are not so many available, this is because this was before they evolved outer shells, and as we know, soft cells don't often get a chance to fossilise - however, they are far from unknown.
https://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm
Next you claim that there is no transitionary ancestry for fish. The same case is so. After all, what do you think a Trilobyte is, if not a sort of fish? There are fossil record of worms. Worms with heads. Worms with gills. Worms with fins. Worms with eyes. At what stage do these all come together so much that they cease to be recognised simply as a worm but as a primitive fish? According to the Creationists, never, because they are all supposedly unique species - even thought the geological ladder shows them appearing millions of years apart.
https://www.thoughtco.com/500-million-y ... on-1093316
You then go on to claim that Dragonflies suddenly appeared from nowhere. Well, sorry - I got news for you again. Dragonflies were much, much later in the insectivorous evolutionary tree - preceded by a multitude of other ground dwelling insects which later became airborn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects
There you go - three different independent sources supporting what I say. You have still to produce any other source than Dolt Brown.
Evidence free assertions including your links. Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Extremely Ugly Seaworm Shows Extreme Non-Evolution
A Bobbit worm is an omnivorous predatory sea worm that, while only a few fingers thick, can grow 10 feet long. It submerges its many segments beneath sandy sea bottoms. Lying still with its fanged jaws ready, it waits for any creature to trip its disguised antennae. In an instant it grabs, drugs, and drags its prey underground to digest it. New evidence supports the idea that special creation, not evolution, explains this unique worm's body construction.
Fossil experts described big Bobbit-worm jaws in Devonian rocks from Ontario. Living examples of this creepy creature are called "polychaete" worms. The study authors wrote, "This demonstrates that polychaete gigantism was already a phenomenon in the Palaeozoic, some 400 million years ago."1
In the evolutionary view, Bobbit worms have not evolved in 400 million years. How could it have avoided relentless and inevitable mutation accumulation? Mutations should have obliterated or at least altered this wacky worm. How could no evolution occur in Bobbit-worm jaw structure during the same time span that supposedly saw such dramatic body reorganization as armored fishes transforming into air-breathing armadillos?
Flood geologists attribute this and similar fossils from low-lying strata to the early stages of Noah's Flood only thousands of years ago. The first creatures that died in the Flood were marine animals. Many of them were slow-moving, like the Bobbit-worm. Possibly the fossilized heavily armored fish, clams, crinoids (sea lilies), and trilobites could not escape the Flood waters that continued their tumultuous torrents month after month during the Flood year.2
An utterly catastrophic Flood explains fossil formation in general with sediments that completely bury sea creatures on top of continents all over the world. And a recent Flood explains why fossils have none of evolution's expected body changes. Living Bobbit worms are virtually identical to their fossil counterparts. These new fossils from Canada show that Bobbit worms never evolved. It's just as though God created them to reproduce according to their well-designed but creepy kind.
Extremely Ugly Seaworm Shows Extreme Non-Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.