Science Disproves Evolution

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510731 wrote: 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


Firstly, dating methods are far more reliable these days than when Mr Brown posted that silliness.

Secondly, an organism not evolving is hardly proof against evolution. Evolution is generally a result of conditions changing that create the need for an organism to adapt. If there is no need to adapt, there is no adaptation, hence, no evolving.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1510733 wrote: Firstly, dating methods are far more reliable these days than when Mr Brown posted that silliness.

Secondly, an organism not evolving is hardly proof against evolution. Evolution is generally a result of conditions changing that create the need for an organism to adapt. If there is no need to adapt, there is no adaptation, hence, no evolving.


On the other hand, if adaptation is necessary, for example if the food source runs out, wouldn't it have to adapt immediately? Would it have millions of years to adapt? Wouldn't it get awfully hungry during that time?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510737 wrote: On the other hand, if adaptation is necessary, for example if the food source runs out, wouldn't it have to adapt immediately? Would it have millions of years to adapt? Wouldn't it get awfully hungry during that time?


You might want to study up on the Giant Panda. If not for human intervention, the Giant Panda would likely be extinct, by now.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 7



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, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510751 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 7



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, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Again, the fossilization process is at best haphazard. It takes specific conditions to create fossils, and while there may be an expectation from some folks that all transitions might be "recorded", the fact that any fossil record exists at all is really quite miraculous.

However there are several transitional species that have been found and recorded despite quotes your Mr Brown may have dug up to the contrary.

Quoting 40-year-old interviews is hardly proof of anything.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1510753 wrote: Again, the fossilization process is at best haphazard. It takes specific conditions to create fossils, and while there may be an expectation from some folks that all transitions might be "recorded", the fact that any fossil record exists at all is really quite miraculous.

However there are several transitional species that have been found and recorded despite quotes your Mr Brown may have dug up to the contrary.

Quoting 40-year-old interviews is hardly proof of anything.


Denying the facts does make them untrue. With billions of fossils, don't you think it strange that not one transitional fossil has been found? It would only be strange if evolution ever happened.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510755 wrote: Denying the facts does make them untrue. With billions of fossils, don't you think it strange that not one transitional fossil has been found? It would only be strange if evolution ever happened.


You obviously did not read my post.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 8



Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively 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.

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing. David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record, Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing. Goldschmidt, p. 98.

“When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Ibid., p. 97.

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla. Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom, Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510837 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 8



Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively 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.

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing. David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record, Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing. Goldschmidt, p. 98.

“When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Ibid., p. 97.

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla. Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom, Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


So, you have nothing new to offer?

[LarsMac]

Perhaps I should follow your lead and just start repeating my posts.

OK, let's start with this one:

Again, the fossilization process is at best haphazard. It takes specific conditions to create fossils, and while there may be an expectation from some folks that all transitions might be "recorded", the fact that any fossil record exists at all is really quite miraculous.

However there are several transitional species that have been found and recorded despite quotes your Mr Brown may have dug up to the contrary.

Quoting 40-year-old interviews is hardly proof of anything.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1510875 wrote: Perhaps I should follow your lead and just start repeating my posts.

OK, let's start with this one:

Again, the fossilization process is at best haphazard. It takes specific conditions to create fossils, and while there may be an expectation from some folks that all transitions might be "recorded", the fact that any fossil record exists at all is really quite miraculous.


How about when you consider the Flood?

However there are several transitional species that have been found and recorded despite quotes your Mr Brown may have dug up to the contrary.


Where are they?

Quoting 40-year-old interviews is hardly proof of anything.


How long does it take for truth to stop being true?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510876 wrote: How about when you consider the Flood?


Even C14 dating is accurate for thousands of years before the era in which your flood is supposed to have occurred.

And there is evidence to show multiple extinction events, with different species affected in different events. Not even Walt can account for all of those. Besides, no matter how you look at it, the fossilization process takes far longer than the ~4300 years that could be a result of your flood.

Pahu;1510876 wrote:

Where are they?


All around. Google "Transition Species"

Pahu;1510876 wrote:

How long does it take for truth to stop being true?


That is a very good question. First, you have to recognize the truth.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1510877 wrote: Even C14 dating is accurate for thousands of years before the era in which your flood is supposed to have occurred.

And there is evidence to show multiple extinction events, with different species affected in different events. Not even Walt can account for all of those. Besides, no matter how you look at it, the fossilization process takes far longer than the ~4300 years that could be a result of your flood.


Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.5-8 In an effort to explain the presence of 14C in these materials, a noted old-earth biologist hypothesized that new, measureable 14C can be generated in very old material from the decay of uranium isotopes in the earth.9

Is this a reasonable hypothesis or an unfounded rescuing device? For 14C to be regenerated in the earth, some source of neutrons is necessary to induce the proton-to-neutron reaction on 14N, which produces 14C in buried living matter, which would lead to artificially young age estimates. This neutron flux can originate either from above (cosmogenic) or from below (subsurface).

Let’s first look at the cosmogenic neutron generation of 14C. Since neutrons do not penetrate very far into matter, cosmogenic neutron flux will be at its maximum right on the earth’s surface. Consider a 30-cm-diameter by 30-cm-long bone section sitting exposed on the ground and being bombarded by a cosmic neutron flux of approximately 6.4 × 10-3 neutrons/cm2-second. After 8,200 years, there will be approximately 1.86 × 1010 14C atoms present when equilibrium is reached between the conversion of 14N into 14C due to modern cosmogenic neutron flux and the decay of 14C in the bone sample. At that point, the 14C/12C ratio will be reduced by approximately a factor of 104—one order of magnitude below the detection limits of an AMS. Even on the earth’s surface, it is highly improbable that contamination in rocks or organic matter by cosmogenically generated 14C would result in artificially young ages.

What about subsurface generation of neutron flux? Neutrons can only be produced by secondary nuclear reactions of alpha particles on O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, or Na.10 Geophysicist John Baumgardner showed that this process is also highly improbable for contaminating 14C samples.11

The old-earth biologist’s attempt to explain away the existence of measureable amounts of 14C in materials deemed to be hundreds of millions of years old is simply not a reasonable hypothesis. Carbon-14 exists in measurable amounts in even the most “ancient rock formations, and this organic material points to a young earth that can be no more than 50,000 years old.

Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1510879 wrote: Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.5-8 In an effort to explain the presence of 14C in these materials, a noted old-earth biologist hypothesized that new, measureable 14C can be generated in very old material from the decay of uranium isotopes in the earth.9

Is this a reasonable hypothesis or an unfounded rescuing device? For 14C to be regenerated in the earth, some source of neutrons is necessary to induce the proton-to-neutron reaction on 14N, which produces 14C in buried living matter, which would lead to artificially young age estimates. This neutron flux can originate either from above (cosmogenic) or from below (subsurface).

Let’s first look at the cosmogenic neutron generation of 14C. Since neutrons do not penetrate very far into matter, cosmogenic neutron flux will be at its maximum right on the earth’s surface. Consider a 30-cm-diameter by 30-cm-long bone section sitting exposed on the ground and being bombarded by a cosmic neutron flux of approximately 6.4 × 10-3 neutrons/cm2-second. After 8,200 years, there will be approximately 1.86 × 1010 14C atoms present when equilibrium is reached between the conversion of 14N into 14C due to modern cosmogenic neutron flux and the decay of 14C in the bone sample. At that point, the 14C/12C ratio will be reduced by approximately a factor of 104—one order of magnitude below the detection limits of an AMS. Even on the earth’s surface, it is highly improbable that contamination in rocks or organic matter by cosmogenically generated 14C would result in artificially young ages.

What about subsurface generation of neutron flux? Neutrons can only be produced by secondary nuclear reactions of alpha particles on O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, or Na.10 Geophysicist John Baumgardner showed that this process is also highly improbable for contaminating 14C samples.11

The old-earth biologist’s attempt to explain away the existence of measureable amounts of 14C in materials deemed to be hundreds of millions of years old is simply not a reasonable hypothesis. Carbon-14 exists in measurable amounts in even the most “ancient rock formations, and this organic material points to a young earth that can be no more than 50,000 years old.

Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth | The Institute for Creation Research


You severely limit the scope of dating methods and then spend all that time explaining what is already known.

However, as I said, even RadioCarbon dating methods are easily accurate within the so-called Flood time line.

Sorry. Flood did not create all those fossils

[FourPart]

Radio Carbon Dating is only one of many methods of dating. When cross referenced they all come up with approximately the same results. One method may be in error, but the more methods that are used & the more methods that corroberate each other the less likelihood there is of inaccuracies.

So many times you have asked where the examples of transitional records are. So many times you have been provided with them. So many times you have denied the evidence. See no evidence, Hear no evidence. Speak no evidence. There's no point in repeatedly proving the same information. Unlike yourself, the more intelligent among us don't need perpetual pasting of the same outdated, inaccurate, unscientific, uninformed source of superstitious nonsense. If there is genuine independant evidence provided we give it due consideration. We do NOT have any regard for repeated pastes. Everyone else just scrolls past it all. Weve seen it all before, time & time again. It's padded wallpaper. It has no meaning. You never argue your case. You never come up with any supportive evidence that isn't listed in your favourite comic book. You are not capable of independant thought. In the past I have referred to you as an idiot. I was in error. You are not that intelligent. A moron would be a more accurate description. Prove me wrong. Stop pasting. Argue your case for yourself. If you choose to continue with your pastings then we can aswsume that you concede the fact that you are an utter moron.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1510979 wrote: Radio Carbon Dating is only one of many methods of dating. When cross referenced they all come up with approximately the same results. One method may be in error, but the more methods that are used & the more methods that corroberate each other the less likelihood there is of inaccuracies.


Dating methods are not reliable. 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

So many times you have asked where the examples of transitional records are. So many times you have been provided with them. So many times you have denied the evidence. See no evidence, Hear no evidence. Speak no evidence.


If you presented evidence of transitions, I have yet to see them.

There's no point in repeatedly proving the same information. Unlike yourself, the more intelligent among us don't need perpetual pasting of the same outdated, inaccurate, unscientific, uninformed source of superstitious nonsense. If there is genuine independant evidence provided we give it due consideration. We do NOT have any regard for repeated pastes. Everyone else just scrolls past it all. Weve seen it all before, time & time again. It's padded wallpaper. It has no meaning. You never argue your case. You never come up with any supportive evidence that isn't listed in your favourite comic book. You are not capable of independant thought. In the past I have referred to you as an idiot. I was in error. You are not that intelligent. A moron would be a more accurate description. Prove me wrong. Stop pasting. Argue your case for yourself. If you choose to continue with your pastings then we can aswsume that you concede the fact that you are an utter moron.


aswsume? The last ditch resource of those who cannot intelligently respond to facts is name calling. It also helps to make false accusations. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

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

[LarsMac]

What is the point? You never recognize any evidence ever offered, here, and have yet to actually offer any evidence of your claims, either.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511004 wrote: What is the point? You never recognize any evidence ever offered, here, and have yet to actually offer any evidence of your claims, either.


You have yet to produce any evidence. My claims are full of evidence. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Dinosaur Moth: An Evolutionary Enigma

Scientists discovered a tiny moth on Australia's Kangaroo Island and gave it the name Enigmatinea glatzella. The name is quite descriptive, as Enigmatinea means "enigma moth" in Latin.1,2 But why is this moth an enigma to evolutionary scientists?

Today's living representatives of this moth have "basically the same features" as their ancestors, which evolutionists claim lived forty to fifty million years ago.3 Hence, virtually no evolution has occurred in all that supposed time! Ted Edwards, one of the scientists tasked with describing the new moth family said, "It's really quite remarkable because it means that the ancestral line has continued right through without changing a lot of its basic structures."1

For this reason, scientists are calling Enigmatinea glatzella a "dinosaur moth." Since, in evolutionary thinking, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, the discovery of living representatives of a creature that is at least forty million years old is as remarkable as discovering a living dinosaur.

The lack of evolution is even more surprising when one realizes that the moth has an extremely short lifespan: These dinosaur moths emerge from their co****s, mate, lay eggs, and die within a single day. Although the total lifespan (egg to adult) of the dinosaur moth is apparently not well-known, other short-lived moths have total lifespans of about a month.4 This means that hundreds of millions of generations of dinosaur moths could easily have lived and died in this supposed forty-million-year interval. Even though death is the engine that supposedly drives evolution, essentially no evolution has occurred in all that alleged time.

Furthermore, this discovery calls into question previous secular beliefs about moth evolution. Constructing a new moth phylogeny (evolutionary lineage) that takes into account the existence of this newly-discovered moth requires, in the words of the paper's authors, "an additional number of ad hoc assumptions."2

This moth is just one more example of a "living fossil," a creature whose living representatives are not significantly different from their fossilized ancestors, despite the alleged passage of millions of years.5,6,7,8 Of course, this lack of evolution is exactly what one would expect to find in nature since God created all flying creatures—including moths—to reproduce "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:21).

Dinosaur Moth: An Evolutionary Enigma | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

A creature that has existed for a very long time is does not disprove evolution. It simply shows that some species have continued to be viable throughout the changes that the planet has gone through. Still no evidence from you.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 9



At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable. Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria, Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511041 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 9



At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable. Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria, Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


what is THAT supposed to be?

It is just another meaningless, out of context snippet.

[Ted]

Anlother bunch of nothing.

[FourPart]

Perpetual pastes from a discredited source do not count as "evidence".

The discipline of Science, as you put it, does not prove or disprove anything. It supports or it dismisses. The rules of science are fairly straightforward. Science, by its nature, constantly questions things based on evidence. The only things it proves it that things exist or existed. It does not prove how those things came to be. That is where theories come into the equation. A theory is formed by observing ALL the available data & coming up with hte best explanation that fits. If further data comes to light that doesn't fit with the theory, then the theory is questioned & if necessary modified. Science accepts that it can be wrong. That is the nature of Science. It has open eyes. It even accepts the possibility of a Creator IF hard evidence can be found that one exists, which, to date, has not been found. However, there is a plethora of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution, and more evidence is constantly coming to light. The discovery of DNA was a landmark breakthrough in the Theory of Evolution as it confirmed 90% of all then theories that had been formed to date without its benefits.

I say again - try arguing a case WITHOUT resorting to the ramblings of Brown & his pre-Victorian superstitious fantasies.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1511158 wrote: Science accepts that it can be wrong. That is the nature of Science. It has open eyes. It even accepts the possibility of a Creator IF hard evidence can be found that one exists, which, to date, has not been found.


False! Hard evidence does exist. 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.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html



However, there is a plethora of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution, and more evidence is constantly coming to light.


Where is that plethora of evidence?

The discovery of DNA was a landmark breakthrough in the Theory of Evolution as it confirmed 90% of all then theories that had been formed to date without its benefits.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.

The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1

After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.

"The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa." Kimbel, W. H. 2013. Palaeoanthropology: Hesitation on hominin history. Nature. 497 (7451): 573-574.



"But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever." Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind: Could Australopithecus sediba Be Our Long Lost Ancestor? Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39.

"The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear." Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of or “in to Africa? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375-10376.

The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research

Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.

As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.

Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.

However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!

Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched together with powerful computers.

In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.

Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10

A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.

So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.

What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?

So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.

So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.

The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.

In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).

Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.

DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ted]

May God, if He exists, protect us from such nonsense as creationism as in browns stupidity.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511163 wrote: False! Hard evidence does exist. 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.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html





Where is that plethora of evidence?



The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

The Bible describes humans as being created in the image of God—the pinnacle of His creation. In contrast, those who embrace the presupposition of naturalistic origins have put much effort and even monkey business into a propaganda crusade to claim a bestial origin for man.

The idea that humans evolved from an ape-like creature was first widely promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s and later by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man—published 12 years after his acclaimed evolutionary treatise On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley, a friend of Darwin, also did much to popularize this idea. Since then, the secular scientific community has promulgated the still-hypothetical idea of human evolution as an established fact.1

After the 150-plus years since Darwin’s famous publication, we still have no fossil evidence demonstrating human evolution. Darwin believed such fossils would eventually be found, but that has simply not been the case. The following quotes from evolutionists themselves accurately sum up the current state of affairs regarding the fossil record and its wholesale lack of support for human evolution.

"The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa." Kimbel, W. H. 2013. Palaeoanthropology: Hesitation on hominin history. Nature. 497 (7451): 573-574.



"But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever." Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind: Could Australopithecus sediba Be Our Long Lost Ancestor? Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39.

"The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear." Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of or “in to Africa? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375-10376.

The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research

Although paleontological evidence has been lacking, in more recent times evidence supporting human evolution was thought to have been found in the DNA of living apes and humans. This article will evaluate the popular myth of human-chimpanzee DNA similarity along with recent research showing that a broad and unbridgeable chasm exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6 These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.

As DNA sequencing became more advanced, scientists were able to compare the actual order of DNA bases (nucleotides) between DNA sequences from different creatures. This was done in a process in which similar DNA segments could be directly matched up or aligned. The differences were then calculated.

Little progress was made in comparing large regions of DNA between chimpanzees and humans until the genomics revolution in the 21st century with its emphasis on developing new technologies to sequence the human genome. Between 2002 and 2005, a variety of reports was published that on the surface seemed to support the 98.5% DNA similarity myth.

However, a careful analysis of these publications reported by this author showed that the researchers were only including data on the most highly aligning sequences and omitting gaps and regions that did not align.5 Once again, we had the same old problem of cherry-picking the data that support evolution while ignoring everything else. However, at least three of these papers described the amount of non-similar data that was thrown out. When those missing data were included in the original numbers, an overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees was only about 81 to 87%, depending on the paper!

Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task. One of the main problems is that the current chimpanzee genome wasn’t constructed based on its own merits. When DNA is sequenced, it’s produced in millions of small pieces that must be “stitched together with powerful computers.

In large mammalian genomes like the chimpanzee, this isn’t easy, especially since very few genetic resources exist to aid the effort compared to those available for the human genome project. Because of this resource issue, a limited budget, and a healthy dose of evolutionary bias, the chimpanzee genome was put together using the human genome as a guide or scaffold onto which the little DNA sequence snippets were organized and stitched together.7 Therefore, the current chimpanzee genome appears much more human-like than it really is. In fact, a recent study by this author showed that individual raw chimpanzee DNA sequences that had poor similarity to human sequences aligned very poorly (if at all) onto the chimpanzee genome that had been assembled using the human genome as a framework.8 This is a dramatic illustration that it is not an authentic representation of the actual chimpanzee genome.

Another serious problem with the chimpanzee genome is that it appears to contain significant levels of human DNA contamination. When DNA samples are prepared in the laboratory for sequencing, it’s common to have DNA from human lab workers get into the samples. Several secular studies show that many non-primate DNA sequence databases contain significant levels of human DNA.9,10

A recent study by this author shows that a little over half of the data sets used to construct the chimpanzee genome contain significantly higher levels of human DNA than the others.8 These data sets with apparent high levels of human DNA contamination were the ones utilized during the first phase of the project that led to the famous 2005 chimpanzee genome publication.11 The data sets produced after this were added on top of the ones in the initial assembly. So, not only was the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as a scaffold, but research indicates that it was constructed with significant levels of contaminating human DNA. This would explain why raw unassembled chimpanzee DNA sequences are difficult to align onto the chimpanzee genome with high accuracy; it’s because it’s considerably more human-like than it should be.

So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human.

What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?

So, what does 85% DNA similarity really mean? First of all, it’s important to note that for human evolution to seem plausible, a DNA similarity of 99% is required. This is based on known current mutation rates in humans and an alleged splitting of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about three to six million years ago. This length of time is a mere second on the evolutionary timescale. Any level of similarity much less than 99% is evolutionarily impossible. This is why evolutionists rely on all sorts of monkey business when it comes to comparing human and chimpanzee DNA—they must achieve a figure close to 99% or their model collapses.

So, what if humans and chimpanzees are only about 85% similar in their DNA? Isn’t this pretty close, too, even if it puts evolution out of the picture? In reality, this level of similarity is exactly what one would expect from a creation perspective because of certain basic similarities in overall body plans and cellular physiology between humans and chimpanzees. After all, DNA is not called the genetic code for nothing. Just as different software programs on a computer have similar sections of code because they perform similar functions, the same similarity exists between different creatures in certain sections of their genomes. This is not evidence that one evolved from another but rather that both creatures were engineered along similar basic principles. DNA similarities between different creatures are evidence of common engineered design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA sequences are unexplainable by alleged evolutionary processes is also strong evidence of design.

The Bible says that every living thing was created according to its kind. This fits the clear, observable boundaries we see in nature between types of creatures, as well as the distinct boundaries researchers find in genomes as DNA sequencing science progresses.

In regard to humans, we are not only a distinctly different kind compared to chimpanzees and other apes, but we are also the one part of creation that stands out above all other living forms because the Bible states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).

Not only is evolution a false paradigm lacking scientific support, it also directly attacks one of the key paradigms of the Bible. Humanity’s unique creation in God’s image is foundational to why Jesus Christ came to redeem us. Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.

DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research


wish you'd come up with some actual evidence.

[FourPart]

As I just explained, Science is a discipline with neither proves nor disproves anything. It merely serves to collate evidence, examine it & to determine whether it supports a theory or not. The very nature of Science means that it always accepts the possibility of another explanation. Therefore nothing can be absolutely proven or disproven - and that inscludes the existence of a God or even Evolution. You just don't seem to get that. You claim Science proves the existence of a God & disproves the existence of Evolution. It doesn't. Nor does it prove the existence of Evolution & disprove the existence of a God. What it DOES do is demonstrates that according to the evidences, the latter is the far more likely option.

There is no such thing as "Supernatural". Natural simply means that something happens - or doesn't happen, for that matter. If that condition changes, then that change has occured, therefore it is natural that the change has happened, therefore that, in itself, becomes natural. It makes no difference what the cause is. It is the effect that is natural. Even the cause is an effect of another cause, etc. You say that before there was something there was nothing. What evidence do you have to this statement? How can you prove that there wasn't always something? That something can simply be some form of potential (stored) energy - it is still something. As usual you are taking a false premise & using it as a 'fact' to base additional flawed conditions on.

As for where the plethora of evidence is - I have provided plenty of sources of evidence. I have no intention of continuing to do so as you merely deny their existence. As with all Creationists you choose to close your eyes to anything that conflicts with your baseless superstition. But turn it around - where is this supposed scientific 'proof' that supposedly 'proves' the existence of a God? All you have ever done it to paste a load of crappy fantasies by Brown. That is, in no way, any kind of 'proof'.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 10



Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] —although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record. Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known... Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ted]

More creative thinking and dancing. LOL

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511240 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 10



Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] —although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record. Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known... Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


A lack of evidence proves (or disproves) nothing.

[Ted]

LarsMac absollutely correct.

[FourPart]

The chances of the right conditions being present to create a fossil are billions to one - yet it happens. The chances of those fossils being found are even rarer, yet it happens. In the process between 'A' & 'Z' we would be lucky to find a 'K' & a 'W', yet over the course of time we have pretty much a full alphabet. However, according to Pahu, every time a new letter is found in the expected sequence, it's nothing of the sort. It's not even part of an alphabet. It's a unique random formation. Not a letter at all. There's no such thing as an alphabet at all. Words were magically created by God. Words cannot form by any natural means, therefore they have to be supernatural. After all, there's a big gap between A & C. Then comes B. But there's a big gap between A & B, and between B & C. As usual, when challenged to lay down the criteria for what would be acceptable evidence you will never get a straight answer. Especially not from Pahu - all he does is paste the same old garbage from the same old outdated fantasy source.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1511378 wrote: The chances of the right conditions being present to create a fossil are billions to one - yet it happens.


That may be true today, but during the Flood, which created most of the fossils, it was common.

The chances of those fossils being found are even rarer, yet it happens.


Billions of fossils have been found, millions of which have been examined and yet not one transmission has been found.

In the process between 'A' & 'Z' we would be lucky to find a 'K' & a 'W', yet over the course of time we have pretty much a full alphabet. However, according to Pahu, every time a new letter is found in the expected sequence, it's nothing of the sort. It's not even part of an alphabet. It's a unique random formation. Not a letter at all. There's no such thing as an alphabet at all. Words were magically created by God. Words cannot form by any natural means, therefore they have to be supernatural.


If you see a message written on the beach in the sand, you immediately conclude an intelligence was the cause. Is it rational to conclude the message written in a tree or a blade of grass or a human is random?



The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates


Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks and artifacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption. However, new observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a mysterious and inadvertent discovery. Brookhaven National Laboratories physicist David Alburger found that the nuclear decay rate of silicon-32 changed with the seasons.1

In a separate but similar instance, Stanford University reported that Purdue physicist Ephraim Fischbach accidentally found that nuclear decay rates sped up during the winter while analyzing data from both Brookhaven and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany.2

The conclusion was that something from the sun must be affecting the decay rates, and researchers suspect that solar neutrinos may be the cause.

Peter Sturrock, a Stanford physicist and expert on the sun's core, reviewed several technical papers that showed these odd correlations between the sun and radioactive systems. He knew that the sun's core rotates at a regular rate and has a "face" side that emits neutrinos more intensely. When the core's face swings around and is aimed at the earth, then the earth receives a more concentrated neutrino blast.

Sturrock found that every 33 days, when that part of the solar core faces earth, there is a corresponding change in the decay rate of radioactive materials.

These data have mystified physicists for more than one reason. For instance, there is no known theory to explain how or why neutrinos, which travelled through the entire earth before they struck and altered the rates of radioactive samples at night, would interact with atomic nuclei. "It's an effect that no one yet understands," Sturrock said in a university report.2 Some physicists have proposed that the sun may be emitting an as-yet-unknown particle to cause this effect.

But the fluctuating rates also fly in the face of the bedrock assumption that nuclear decay rates are constant. Sturrock said, "Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant."2 Some say the fluctuation is due to a computer glitch, but such speculation fails to account for the match between two separate patterns of earth-sun interaction--seasons and solar core rotations.

If the assumption of a constant rate is incorrect, then conclusions built upon that assumption are suspect, including certain dates assigned to artifacts and earth materials.

This actually does not surprise those scientists willing to investigate the possibility that radioactive decay rates are, in fact, not stable. For example, it has been reported that dates for the same rock from different nuclear decay systems are usually discordant.3 Also, whenever rocks that were witnessed forming--as when lava hardens--were later dated with methods that depend on these supposedly constant rates, they were always "dated" orders of magnitude older than the known, actual age.4

The implications of inconsistent decay rates in radioactive elements are vast. And those inconsistencies are real, calling into question evolutionists' adamant assertions of an ancient age for the earth.

The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ted]

Oh!!!!????

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511382 wrote: That may be true today, but during the Flood, which created most of the fossils, it was common.



Billions of fossils have been found, millions of which have been examined and yet not one transmission has been found.



If you see a message written on the beach in the sand, you immediately conclude an intelligence was the cause. Is it rational to conclude the message written in a tree or a blade of grass or a human is random?



The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates


Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks and artifacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption. However, new observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a mysterious and inadvertent discovery. Brookhaven National Laboratories physicist David Alburger found that the nuclear decay rate of silicon-32 changed with the seasons.1

In a separate but similar instance, Stanford University reported that Purdue physicist Ephraim Fischbach accidentally found that nuclear decay rates sped up during the winter while analyzing data from both Brookhaven and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany.2

The conclusion was that something from the sun must be affecting the decay rates, and researchers suspect that solar neutrinos may be the cause.

Peter Sturrock, a Stanford physicist and expert on the sun's core, reviewed several technical papers that showed these odd correlations between the sun and radioactive systems. He knew that the sun's core rotates at a regular rate and has a "face" side that emits neutrinos more intensely. When the core's face swings around and is aimed at the earth, then the earth receives a more concentrated neutrino blast.

Sturrock found that every 33 days, when that part of the solar core faces earth, there is a corresponding change in the decay rate of radioactive materials.

These data have mystified physicists for more than one reason. For instance, there is no known theory to explain how or why neutrinos, which travelled through the entire earth before they struck and altered the rates of radioactive samples at night, would interact with atomic nuclei. "It's an effect that no one yet understands," Sturrock said in a university report.2 Some physicists have proposed that the sun may be emitting an as-yet-unknown particle to cause this effect.

But the fluctuating rates also fly in the face of the bedrock assumption that nuclear decay rates are constant. Sturrock said, "Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant."2 Some say the fluctuation is due to a computer glitch, but such speculation fails to account for the match between two separate patterns of earth-sun interaction--seasons and solar core rotations.

If the assumption of a constant rate is incorrect, then conclusions built upon that assumption are suspect, including certain dates assigned to artifacts and earth materials.

This actually does not surprise those scientists willing to investigate the possibility that radioactive decay rates are, in fact, not stable. For example, it has been reported that dates for the same rock from different nuclear decay systems are usually discordant.3 Also, whenever rocks that were witnessed forming--as when lava hardens--were later dated with methods that depend on these supposedly constant rates, they were always "dated" orders of magnitude older than the known, actual age.4

The implications of inconsistent decay rates in radioactive elements are vast. And those inconsistencies are real, calling into question evolutionists' adamant assertions of an ancient age for the earth.

The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research


Well, dear, I've read a couple of the articles mentioned, and found a lot of papers on the subject. Very fascinating.

However, I suggest that you read a couple for yourself, before taking such a stand.

There is a very low probability that all of the potential fluctuations are responsible stretching out 6 to 10 thousand years into millions. Sorry.

It seems that your whole post is simply a collection of half-assed speculation based one poorly understood data.

And, still, it has absolutely nothing to do with Evolutionary theory.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511390 wrote: Well, dear, I've read a couple of the articles mentioned, and found a lot of papers on the subject. Very fascinating.

However, I suggest that you read a couple for yourself, before taking such a stand.

There is a very low probability that all of the potential fluctuations are responsible stretching out 6 to 10 thousand years into millions. Sorry.

It seems that your whole post is simply a collection of half-assed speculation based one poorly understood data.

And, still, it has absolutely nothing to do with Evolutionary theory.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?

Real Science Is Not Arbitrary

Life—according to evolutionists—began when different chemicals, under the right circumstances, came together and formed a more complex unit which eventually developed into an organism.

It took millions of years for life to begin because the right kinds of chemicals, initially, didn't know they were right for each other until, under some arbitrary, chance circumstances, they finally met and made a match. Then, it required millions of more years for organisms to co-mingle and become transformed into complex creatures.

The key factor in the theory of evolution is that the right elements came together under arbitrary circumstances. It would have to be that way, because if the elements were to be put together in a planned, or predestined, or systematic way, there would need to be a force directing them. The life forms that resulted would, then, have been "created."

Charles Darwin advanced the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859. As it was gaining wide acceptance in the scientific community in the 1920s, noted scientist Sir William Cecil Dampier wrote:

The fundamental concepts of physical science, it is now understood, are abstractions, framed by our mind, so as to bring order to an apparent chaos of phenomena.

In other words, some scientists believed it was valid to use an abstract as theory to provide a simple answer to something that they could not otherwise observe and called it "evolution science." Yet, what is true science? Is it merely theory, or is it demonstrated fact? Is it arbitrary and unpredictable, or specific and systematic? In true science, a theory may be the basis for inquiry and study; but until it is "proven up," it is only speculation. It is not scientific to guess at conclusions.

In addition, whatever has been determined to be scientific fact always turns out to be part of an elaborate pattern. When you take a closer look at fact-based science, it is very systematic.

Science looks at the way something is. Research may have to discover how it is. But once a discovery is made—for instance, the speed of light—it becomes a scientific fact because it repeats itself in exactly the same way. Scientific facts are consistent and predictable—from the simplest to the most complex.

Two plus two is four; and two times two is four. It is absolute, conclusive, and unalterable. The way you do a certain calculation, whether basic math or complex algebra, is the way it will always be done, and it will always produce the same result. Physics. Chemistry. Electricity. Radio waves. Plant life. Animal life. The physical and life sciences are all very precise and systematic sciences. Each follows a specific pattern. There are basic forms of each, as well as scientific combinations. For example, you can "mate" an orange and a tangerine because they are from the same family. But you cannot mix apples and oranges, even though they are both fruits. Nor is there any logic or proof that an apple evolved from an orange, or an orange from an apple. Likewise, monkeys and humans may have many similar physical features and social behaviors, but that seems to be a rather thin link to conclude that humans are the offspring of monkeys.

Furthermore, for anything to be considered scientifically true, it has to be something that can be duplicated. If evolution were true, wouldn't scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans?

Instead, scientists in the 1950s discovered that each organic species—both plant and animal—has a specific, complex code for its species. It is called DNA which are complex segments of information in a cell that determine what kind of a plant or animal something is. The DNA signature is unique for every species, plus every creature has a DNA pattern which is unique for it. In other words, "Joe" has a DNA code for the human species, as well as a DNA pattern unique to him.

More importantly, that DNA pattern has to be in a specific sequence for each species. In humans, there are three billion bits (called nucleotides) of information which fall into a very precise DNA sequence.

And this DNA sequence cannot, and does not, rearrange itself to create something new. DNA does not have the independent capacity to add nucleotides at will. Once a given program is established, it remains fixed in its basic sequence.

So in terms of pure science, "evolution science" appears to be a contradiction—an oxymoron. Evolution is unpredictable and arbitrary, while science is systematic—based on a preexisting system. And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?

[continued]

More Questions Than Answers

Evolution faces additional problems besides not fitting into the standard definition of science. Despite the extensive research in this field, it has to be acknowledged that some 130 years after the theory was proposed, there are still more questions than answers.

The Darwin concept of evolution was chiefly based on a cause-and-effect scenario: creatures changed and developed because of the necessity to adapt to new surroundings.

In this century, various paleontologists have discovered bone fragments of skeletons which they claim are extinct creatures that are the "missing links" between apes and man, thus supposedly proving evolution, and proving that today's humans are better adapted than these other creatures of a bygone era.

But what supporting evidence do we really have? Why are we so quick to believe that a one-of-a-kind, hunch-backed skeleton 400,000 years old is suddenly the "missing link"? A few years after this discovery, some different fossils—supposedly one million years old—were found in another part of the world and were called the "missing link." Is there a link between these two links? And where are all of the other missing links? Where is the chain of evidence that shows how the unique parts of creatures evolved? How did the eye develop? How did we get a heart, stomach, other organs, teeth, hearing, smell, nerves, muscles, bones, and skin all in one nice, neat package?

And a sperm meets an egg, we get another creature, almost as easily as using the Xerox. For that matter, how did the distinction of male and female genders occur?

How does evolution explain an unattractive, slithering caterpillar going into a chrysalis and emerging as one of nature's most delicately beautiful creatures—a butterfly?

But the most basic and difficult question of all is: How did inorganic material make the transition to organic, living cells? In fact, this was one of the first questions raised about evolution theory. But the proponents of evolution past and present avoid it. I. L. Cohen points out in his book, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities: "The idea that life sprang spontaneously from dead inorganic matter was quietly set aside, under-emphasized, and virtually forgotten."

With so many pertinent questions, and such weak science in the limited answers offered, at best, evolution seems to end up being a jigsaw puzzle with a significant number of pieces missing. Looking closely at the issues surrounding evolution, it seems perplexing that so many scientists still cling to and advocate it, even to the point of endorsing it as factual truth in science textbooks.

The conclusion of I. L. Cohen is that "the constant repetition of a speculation did, unfortunately, extend it an aura of unwarranted credibility, which, in turn, embedded itself into our collective minds as established fact."

Conclusion

Are evolutionists disingenuous? In the beginning, the proponents of evolution theory asked that society become broad-minded to allow the free expression of their minority point-of-view. But now that Darwinists represent the majority viewpoint, they have become narrow-minded, forcing the exclusion in the free marketplace of ideas of differing opinions.

In the most democratic of places—public schools—evolution has been elevated to a scientific gospel, and other concepts are no longer presented because they are heretical. But other ideas need to be given a forum. Indoctrination in only one viewpoint demeans true science. Let's be more fairminded.

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense? | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

More Gobbledegook masquerading as "Science"

Science starts with a question, examines the evidence and suggests explanations, which are then tested against said evidence in an effort to come up with a reasonable and logical answer to the question.

What creation "Science" seems to do is start with an answer, then browbeat the evidence into a pseudo-scientific question to fit the answer.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511422 wrote: More Gobbledegook masquerading as "Science"

Science starts with a question, examines the evidence and suggests explanations, which are then tested against said evidence in an effort to come up with a reasonable and logical answer to the question.

What creation "Science" seems to do is start with an answer, then browbeat the evidence into a pseudo-scientific question to fit the answer.


False! Creation scientists examine the evidence and suggest explanations, which are then tested against said evidence in an effort to come up with a reasonable and logical answer to the question.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Evolution: The Changing Scene

Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc. Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."

This admission by Prof. Ager (no friend of creationists) fits in very well with the title of this article—a significant part of the changing scene in evolutionary circles is the changing attitude of evolutionists concerning the fossil record—more and more are now admitting that the missing links are still missing, that they have little or no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record.

In his article in Natural History 86:22 (1977) entitled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Stephen J. Gould, leading spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said that:

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change¦. "

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

From an article published in Paleobiology, Vol. 3 (1977) by S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we find the following on p. 147:

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)."In his review of Steven Stanley's book Macroevolution by D.S. Woodruff (Science 208:716 (1980)), Woodruff says (I believe he is quoting Stanley):

"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."

The clatter has become so loud that even the popular press has picked it up. Newsweek in an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980, stated:

"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures .... The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."

Some evolutionists have come to realize that the fossil record is so bad relative to evolution theory that they want to avoid it entirely as support for evolution. Mark Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in his article published in New Scientist 90:832 (1981) that:

"No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

[continue]

[Pahu]

Evolution: The Changing Scene

[continued]

One might immediately wonder, then, where does Ridley believe we find all the marvelous evidence for the "fact of evolution?" Why, from the "observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy," Ridley tells us. He apparently disagrees with his fellow evolutionist and the most distinguished of all French zoologists, Pierre Grasse´ , who states in his book Evolution of Living Organisms (English translation, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 4):

"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents."

What Grasse´ says in his book is that biology offers us no help in our attempt to understand the mechanism of evolution. He says that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. He says certainly mutations and natural selection cannot possibly provide that mechanism.

Many others in more recent times, in view of the growing knowledge that the fossil record produces no evidence for gradual change and that the gaps in the fossil record, particularly at the level of the higher categories, are systematic and almost always large, are now abandoning the neo-Darwinian theory of slow gradual change. Gould has said that as a general principle, neo-Darwinism is dead, although it is still textbook orthodoxy.

In his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin (Science 217:1239-1240, 1982) says:

"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor influence. 'It can affect survivorship' says Brooks. 'It can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested."'

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-changing-scene/

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 11



“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution, Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

I suppose that it is OK to repeat oneself in this thread, given how often you do it, so, here we go, again.

A lack of evidence does not prove (or disprove) anything.

[Ted]

Just those who want to engage in wishful thinking. Evolution is the best explanation so far.

[Pahu]

Ted;1511451 wrote: Just those who want to engage in wishful thinking. Evolution is the best explanation so far.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



A Classic Polystrate Fossil

Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers. An advocate of any form of uniformitarianism would believe that it took many, many years to deposit this sequence of layers (much longer than it takes for a tree to grow and eventually die and decay), yet one vertical fossil extends through them all. This one fossilized tree offered a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past."



The specific strata surrounding the fossil provided a history. According to uniformitarianism, many years are required for a thick layer of peat to accumulate in a swampy environment. This type of location is quite different from the marine environment in which tiny shale-sized particles are deposited. Over "millions and millions of years" of heat and pressure generated by the subsequently deposited overlying marine sediments, the peat is thought to have metamorphosed into coal.

The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal. No scenario possible today could account for this sequence of events if evolution’s interpretation of earth history is true.

Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it. The name polystrate ("many layers") is used only by creationists. You will seldom find it in the standard literature, even though the related concepts are easily grasped. Unfortunately, National Geographic requires a not-insignificant fee for the use of its photographs, and only on occasion was this one used by creationists. The fossil looked rather fragile, and since many polystrates are known, we never tried to go to the site and relocate this particular one.

Recently, however, creationist Ian Juby decided to try and track it down. Much to his surprise, it was still there, looking even better than ever. But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position.

Just such an event happened at Mount St. Helens in 1980, when an eruption toppled a standing forest. The tree trunks were deposited in Spirit Lake. After a few years of waterlogging, the trunks sunk roots down, in life's position but not life's location. Today there are tens of thousands of upright trees standing on the bottom of the lake. They are being engulfed by fine particles of volcanic ash and clay, and if the underlying organic layer of bark were heated by a future eruption, it would likely metamorphose into coal and duplicate the scenario revealed in the photo.

The eruption at Mount St. Helens taught us much about the effects of dynamic processes. It provided a model for deciphering unseen past geologic cataclysms, and produced effects which before had puzzled us. Our understanding of possible events during the great Flood of Noah's day was substantially expanded, including that rapid deposition of sediments and burial of fossils could be expected during such a deluge. The more evidence that science uncovers, the more it supports the biblical account of earth's history.

A Classic Polystrate Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ted]

LarsMac right oln.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511455 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



A Classic Polystrate Fossil

Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers. An advocate of any form of uniformitarianism would believe that it took many, many years to deposit this sequence of layers (much longer than it takes for a tree to grow and eventually die and decay), yet one vertical fossil extends through them all. This one fossilized tree offered a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past."



The specific strata surrounding the fossil provided a history. According to uniformitarianism, many years are required for a thick layer of peat to accumulate in a swampy environment. This type of location is quite different from the marine environment in which tiny shale-sized particles are deposited. Over "millions and millions of years" of heat and pressure generated by the subsequently deposited overlying marine sediments, the peat is thought to have metamorphosed into coal.

The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal. No scenario possible today could account for this sequence of events if evolution’s interpretation of earth history is true.

Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it. The name polystrate ("many layers") is used only by creationists. You will seldom find it in the standard literature, even though the related concepts are easily grasped. Unfortunately, National Geographic requires a not-insignificant fee for the use of its photographs, and only on occasion was this one used by creationists. The fossil looked rather fragile, and since many polystrates are known, we never tried to go to the site and relocate this particular one.

Recently, however, creationist Ian Juby decided to try and track it down. Much to his surprise, it was still there, looking even better than ever. But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position.

Just such an event happened at Mount St. Helens in 1980, when an eruption toppled a standing forest. The tree trunks were deposited in Spirit Lake. After a few years of waterlogging, the trunks sunk roots down, in life's position but not life's location. Today there are tens of thousands of upright trees standing on the bottom of the lake. They are being engulfed by fine particles of volcanic ash and clay, and if the underlying organic layer of bark were heated by a future eruption, it would likely metamorphose into coal and duplicate the scenario revealed in the photo.

The eruption at Mount St. Helens taught us much about the effects of dynamic processes. It provided a model for deciphering unseen past geologic cataclysms, and produced effects which before had puzzled us. Our understanding of possible events during the great Flood of Noah's day was substantially expanded, including that rapid deposition of sediments and burial of fossils could be expected during such a deluge. The more evidence that science uncovers, the more it supports the biblical account of earth's history.

A Classic Polystrate Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research


I don't agree with "This one fossilized tree offered a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past.""

I see it as a fascinating anomaly.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511492 wrote: I don't agree with "This one fossilized tree offered a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past.""

I see it as a fascinating anomaly.


How do you explain the fact of trees growing through allegedly millions of years of strata?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511504 wrote: How do you explain the fact of trees growing through allegedly millions of years of strata?


I don't.

I would leave the explaining to the scientists.

But, then, that is not what I see in that picture.

[LarsMac]

LarsMac;1511506 wrote: I don't.

I would leave the explaining to the scientists.

But, then, that is not what I see in that picture.


Besides, Others long ago explained the phenomenon very well, and Young Earth Creationists tend to ignore those explanations, and claim that they do not exist.

[FourPart]

Creationists do not examine the evidence & then come up with explanations. The come up with explanations & then cherry pick whichever pieces of evidence they feel may support their explanations, albeit if misinterpreted.

As for most of the fossils supposedly having originated from the flood? How come they haven't found a proportionate amount of fossilised humans at the same geological level? In theory there should be just as many fossils being found of humans as any other creature of the same time - but there aren't.

Come to that, how come no human fossils have been found at the same geological levels as dinosaurs, and earlier life forms? Evolution explains it very well - there simply weren't humans around to be fossilised at that time. Creationism has no explanation at all.