ForumGarden

Ahso!;1353278 wrote: Your problem, Pehu, is that what you present bears no resemblance to scientific information that disproves evolution. You don't even know what evolution is, for christ sake.


What do you think evolution is?

Pahu;1353279 wrote: What do you think evolution is?Evolution

Evolution Ev`o*lu"tion ([e^]v`[-o]*l[=u]"sh[u^]n), n. [L.

evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See

Evolve.]

1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, any process of

growth or development; as, the evolution of a flower from

a bud, or an animal from the egg.

And you?

Pahu;1353276 wrote: Is that your idea of a rational response to the scientific information disproving evolution?


No it is not my Idea of a rational response to the scientific information disproving evolution, but it is the closest I can attempt to a rational response I have to what ever the hell it is that your doing which is very irrational so to have a rational response to it is pointless.

Ahso!;1353280 wrote: Evolution

Evolution Ev`o*lu"tion ([e^]v`[-o]*l[=u]"sh[u^]n), n. [L.

evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See

Evolve.]

1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, any process of

growth or development; as, the evolution of a flower from

a bud, or an animal from the egg.

And you?


Accurate as far as it goes. Concerning Darwinism, organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Going even broader, cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While cosmic evolution attempts to integrate in other scientific theories such as evolution, it is not itself a theory or a product of reproducible evidence leading to acceptance by the scientific community. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history—a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology). It makes use of ideas of information theory, chaos theory, complexity, systems, and emergence.

littleCJelkton;1353285 wrote: No it is not my Idea of a rational response to the scientific information disproving evolution, but it is the closest I can attempt to a rational response I have to what ever the hell it is that your doing which is very irrational so to have a rational response to it is pointless.


In what way do you consider what I am doing to be irrational?

Pahu;1353316 wrote: In what way do you consider what I am doing to be irrational?


Well Let Me Show you.

Let us take a moment to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the greatest take-down of human hubris. In November 1960, a 29-year-old British woman named Jane Goodall was wrapping up a long field season among the chimpanzees of Tanzania. She had won their trust, or at least their indifference, and so Goodall could observe the chimpanzees up close, discovering things about their behavior that no one had seen before. One day, walking alone through a valley, she passed by a termite mound with a tree stump nearby. It occurred to Goodall that there was no stump there. She dropped to the ground, realizing that a chimpanzee was crouched over the mound, fifty yards from her. He was eating termites.

"Then," Goodall later wrote, "very deliberately he pulled a thick grass stalk towards him & broke off a piece about 18 inches long."

The chimpanzee, whom she later named Greybeard, turned his back on Goodall, making it impossible for her to see what he was doing with the stalk. He then spotted his human observer and ran off.

Two days later, Goodall returned to the termite mound. Greybeard was back, another stalk in his hand, and now she could see what he was doing. He was dipping the stalk into the termite mound. The enraged termites clamped onto the grass, which Greybeard then drew out.

"It was held in the left hand," she wrote, "poked into the ground, and then removed coated with termites. The straw was then raised to the mouth & the insects picked off with the lips, along the length of the straw, starting at the middle."

At the time, this was a shattering thing to see. Greybeard was using a tool: he was picking out an object from nature and using it to get something he could not get with his own body. But tools were supposed to have been unique to humans. In fact, making tools was supposed to have been crucial for the evolution of humans, full stop. Tools had allowed early humans to kill more animals and dig up more tubers, to farm and build cities. In 1960, while Goodall was wandering the mountains of western Tanzania, computer engineers were unveiling the PDP-1, the first computer that didn't need to be in an air-conditioned room. AT&T was releasing Dataphone, the first commercial modem. The Industrial Age was starting to give way to the Information Age, thanks to humanity's unique gift of tool-making.

Goodall sent a cable to her patron, Louis Leakey, to let him know that our unique gift with tools might not be so unique after all.

Leakey cabled back his astonishment: "Now we must redefine 'tool,' redefine 'man,' or accept chimpanzees as humans."

Fifty years later, the PDP-1 has given way to cloud computing; the Dataphone to WiFi. And over the past five decades, our understanding of animals using tools has changed dramatically, too. As University of St Andrews researchers Amanda Seed and Richard Byrne write in the new issue of Current Biology, Greybeard was not a freakish outlier. In fact, chimpanzees are far from the only animals to make and use tools. Leakey's cable resonates more than ever.

Scientists have observed chimpanzees making a great many tools in the wild. They will gather up stones and carry them to forest kitchens, where they use them to crack open nuts. They sharpen sticks to spear bush babies. They can fashion sandals from leaves to walk over thorny ground cover. Some chimpanzees carry tool kits: a stout stick to break into termite mound, and a slender one to fish out the termites.

Since chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, their newly discovered technology might mean that the origin of tool use should be pushed back, from the oldest hominin stone tools 2.5 million years ago to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees some seven million years ago. But reality turns out to be more complicated than that. Gorillas and orangutans use tools as well. Gorillas will poke a stick into water to test its depth. Orangutans use wooden picks to tease out the irritating hairs in fruits before they eat them.

All right then--can we just push tool use back to the common ancestor of great apes, 20 million years ago? Not quite. Capuchin monkeys in Brazil can break nuts with rocks as well. Dolphins can stick sponges on their snouts to protect their delicate skin from the rough sea bottom as they look for food. And on the remote Pacific islands of New Caledonia, even crows are tool makers.

In 1992, Gavin Hunt of the University of Auckland discovered that New Caledonian crows regularly broke off sticks and twisted their tips to create hooks. They then used these hooks to fish for insect larvae that lived in the crevices of candlenut trees. If they can't find the right stick, the leaf of pandanus plants will do. They peck away at the edge of the jagged-edge leaf, so that they can dip it into crevices. When the crows draw the leaves back out, their jagged edges snag insects.

Dolphins, crows, New World monkeys, and great apes: these four groups of animals must have evolved their abilities to make and use tools on their own. Seed and Byrne consider their different technologies to see what these animals have in common. To begin with, their brains need to rewire themselves. When we pick up a knife, our brains use a representation of our outstretched arm to guide it to the right destination. But once we start using the knife to cut an onion, the knife becomes part of that representation, as an extension of our bodies. Studies on monkeys reveal that they reorganize their brains to encompass tools as well. As I write in Brain Cuttings, some philosophers have argued that we should think of all of our technology today as an extended mind. Google is not out to make us stupid in other words; it's actually more like a vast extension of our memory.

But tool use requires more than just the necessary brain power to handle a tool. An animal has to know why it's using the thing in the first place. New Caledonian crows, for example, don't simply start prying at sticks at the sight of food. They size up the situation first. Alex Taylor, a colleague of Hunt's at the University of Auckland, set up a remarkable experiment to test this ability in crows. He put a piece of meat at the far end of a narrow transparent box. The crows could see the food but not reach it. Near the food box was a second box with a long stick inside. But Taylor put bars on the box so that the crow couldn't reach it with its beak. Finally, Taylor tied a short stick to a piece of string, so that it dangled nearby.

The crows inspected the boxes and the sticks and came up with a solution. They hopped to the string, and pulled it up. They pulled the short stick free and then used it to fish out the long stick. And then they used the long stick to reach the food.

Tool-making also demands a capacity for innovations--for coming up with new solutions that other animals haven't discovered before. New Caledonian crows can bend pieces of wires to make larva-fishing hooks. Innovations require not just the ability to picture a goal, but an understanding of physics--how different objects will function in response to gravity, friction, and other forces.

The capacity to use tools has only evolved a few times, which raises the question, why hasn't it evolved more often? Seed and Byrne observe that tools demands time and effort. While one animal is busy struggling with its equipment, other animals may be able to get food with nothing but their mouths. It's possible that the evolution of tool use has been favored in places where the benefits outweigh the costs--where easy-to-eat food is scarce or the food supply is unpredictable. This hypothesis has some evidence in its favor. Capuchin monkeys in dry forests will use stones to dig for tubers. But in moister forests where fruits are abundant, capuchins have never been seen digging tubers. On the other hand, orangutans use sticks to probe for insects most frequently in places where the insects are most abundant, even when they have other choices for food.

It's also possible that tool use only evolves in lineages that have already acquired skills such as goal-following, planning, and understanding rules. New Caledonian crows are closely related to other species of crows, as well as jays, forming a group called corvids. Other corvids cannot match New Caledonian crows in using tools, but they are capable of other kinds of complex cognition. Scrub jays, for example, can hide seeds in thousands of caches over many square miles, and they can accurately recall the location of every one. Once a lineage evolves this level of cognition, tool-making may then become a possibility.

Social intelligence may also be a prerequisite . At first, social intelligence and tool use might not seem like a very good match. When we think of social intelligence, we might think of organizing a food drive or a start-up company. And when we think of tool-use, we think of sitting alone in front of a computer. But a great deal of evidence suggests that the two kinds of cognition are intertwined. Primates that live in complex societies tend to have bigger brains than those in smaller groups, for example. It's possible that the demands of a social life foster bigger, more powerful brains--which can then be turned to new challenges like tools.

Corvids are also very social birds, and they also have large brains. But they don't share the correlation between group size and brain size found in primates. In fact, New Caledonian crows, the most cognitively impressive of the corvids, actually live in small families, rarely interacting with other families. What they lack in quantity, they make make up for in quality. Unlike many bird species, in which the young leave their parents as soon as possible, juvenile New Caledonian crows stay with their parents for over a year. The juvenile crows don't have to invent tools on their own. Instead, they can watch their parents make tools and use them. This time for learning is probably essential for the crows, because it takes over a year for New Caledonian crows to figure out how to use hooks to get food. In an intriguing parallel, adult chimpanzees also allow juveniles to watch them crack nuts and use other kinds of tools.

The ability that chimpanzees and New Caledonian crows have to learn and to come up with new solutions to old problems has also endowed them with something else: culture. The tools used in one population of crows are different in certain ways from the tools made by other populations. Some populations shape panadus leaves into wide probes, while others make them slender. Still others cut a stepped series of notches in the leaves. Chimpanzee technologies also vary from one site to the next. Not all chimpanzees use rocks to smash nuts, for example. Many populations of apes have unique combinations of tools and techniques that neighboring populations lack.

After our ancestors branched off from other apes, they evolved into the best tool-makers on Earth. But it took a long time. The oldest hominin fossils and the oldest stone tools are separated by four million years. Even then, the tools were just chipped rocks. But then, at an accelerating pace, our ancestors got better at making tools. Our social life may have been helping to push that acceleration--humans are far more aware of each other, and what they're thinking, than other apes. Children were not just able to learn from adult tool-users; the adults could start to teach the children, too. As our brains expanded--thanks in part to our increasingly complex social life--they may have become better able to carry out the thinking required for using tools. Seed and Byrne suggest that one key skill we evolved was keeping many different representations of reality in our heads all at once.

Still, we shouldn't look at animal tool-makers as nothing but living fossils, showing us how simple our skills once were. Animal technology is constantly developing, just like ours. On New Caledonia, for example, it's startling to consider the fact that the candlenut trees where crows use their tools are not native. They were brought from Indonesia by early settlers perhaps a few thousand years ago. Faced with a new source of food, the crows of New Caledonia invented a new kind of technology.

Fifty years after Goodall spotted a fishing chimpanzee, our redefinition continues

The main goals of this symposium are to communicate new research regarding genetic and phenotypic insights into the evolutionary past of humans, our continuing evolution, and the implications of this research. The evolution of humans within the primate lineage (approximately 6 million to 8 million years ago) and the more recent migrations of modern humans across the globe in the past 100,000 years are fascinating topics with a strong scientific foundation. The DNA sequences of chromosomes in all of Earth's living organisms serve as a genetic archeological record, which provides not only a window on our own evolutionary past, but also a framework for making meaningful comparisons of biological phenomena in humans and other primates. The speakers in this symposium will illustrate this framework by describing work based on analyses of DNA sequences and phenotype distributions. For example, recent work on malaria in baboons allows us to exploit our common ancestry with nonhuman primates to help us understand the evolution of human interactions with the malarial parasite, Plasmodium vivax. In other examples, elucidation of the adaptive correlates of human skin color differences, and differences in adult human lactose tolerance, when considered in their geographic context, provide insight into the history of human migration within and out of Africa, and how migrating populations evolved in response to challenges posed by new and different environmental conditions.

chances are that a number of processes combined to create the views that you see in todays Grand Canyon. The most powerful force to have an impact on the Grand Canyon is erosion, primarily by water (and ice) and second by wind. Other forces that contributed to the Canyon's formation are the course of the Colorado River itself, vulcanism, continental drift and slight variations in the earths orbit which in turn causes variations in seasons and climate.

Water seems to have had the most impact basically because our planet has lots of it and it is always on the move. Many people cannot understand how water can have such a profound impact considering that the Canyon is basically located in a desert. This is one of the biggest reasons that water has such a big impact here. Because the soil in the Grand Canyon is baked by the sun it tends to become very hard and cannot absorb water when the rains to come. When it does rain the water tends to come down in torrents which only adds to the problem. The plants that grow in the Grand Canyon tend to have very shallow root systems so that they can grab as much water as possible on those rare occasions when it does rain. Unfortunately these root systems do nothing to deter erosion by holding the soil in place. Now you've got lots of water, no place for it to go, but down to the Colorado River, and nothing holding the soil and rock in place. The result is frequently a flash flood roaring down a side canyon that can move boulders the size of automobiles, buses and even small houses. If automobiles, buses and small houses are in the way then it will take them too. Luckily no one builds houses in the Grand Canyon so that's not a problem but there are a few autos, vans and buses sitting at the bottom of the Colorado. This mass that moves down a side canyon during a flash flood is more like a fast flowing concrete than water and it can be very dangerous. You should always be well informed of weather conditions when you are hiking through side canyons in the Grand Canyon.

After erosion by liquid water the next most powerful force is probably its solid form, ice. In the colder months, especially on the north rim, water seeps into cracks between the rocks. These cracks can be caused by seismic activity, or by the constant soaking and drying of the rocks. When the water freezes it expands and pushes the rocks apart and widens the cracks. Eventually rocks near the rim are pushed off the edge and fall into the side canyons. These rocks sometimes hit other rocks and are stopped but on occasion one fall by a large rock will cause a cascading effect and create a rock fall that will alter the landscape drastically in the side canyon. Debris from rock falls piles up at the bottom of the side canyons and is then carried down to the Colorado River the next time there is a flash flood. Rock falls frequently take out sections of trail in the Grand Canyon requiring the Park Service to close these trails until they can be repaired.

Once the ice had pushed the rocks off the edge and the water in the flash floods has carried them down to the river, then the Colorado itself takes over. The erosive action of the Colorado has been severely constrained by the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, which ended the annual spring floods, but there is still a lot of water flowing relatively quickly through a very narrow gorge. Before building the dam the Colorado River had spring floods that would exceed a flow rate of 100,000 CFS. All of that snow melting in the Colorado Rockies came pouring down through the Grand Canyon in May and June, every year, like clock-work. These spring floods were considerably larger than todays "trickle" of 8,000-10,000 CFS at low water and even the 20,000 CFS peak flow rates.

The Colorado's spring floods used to carry away all of the debris that was deposited in the main channel by the flash floods, but todays mediocre flow rates have a tough time doing the job. It still gets done to some extent, it just takes a lot longer. In the process of moving the rocks and sediment down the river to the Pacific Ocean the bed of the river is scoured by all of this fast moving debris which slowly eats away at the banks and bed of the river. This causes the river to widen and cut down deeper into the lower rock layers. Another cause for the slowing of the erosive force of the Colorado River is the fact that it is now trying to cut through harder granites and schists found at the bottom of the Canyon instead of the softer limestones, sandstones and shales near the top. This rock takes a lot longer to erode and a slower moving river means it takes even longer.

Where did all of the rock come from?

Geologists have this question pretty much wrapped up, aside from some missing layers, or unconformities, that have been completely eroded away. Again there were a number of forces at work and this is where continental drift, vulcanism and climatic change come into play.

The fact that the Earth's continents are not fixed in place but rather float on a sea of molten rock, means that they move around quite a bit, relatively speaking. The surface of the Earth is composed of about twenty of these "plates" which form its crust. Seven of these plates are very large and consist of entire continents or sea floors and the rest are smaller in comparison. The plates are average out to be about 50 miles or 80 kilometers thick and float on top of the Earth's mantle. The plate which contains the Grand Canyon, the North American plate, was at one time considerably further south than its present location and therefore had a much different climate. In time it has gradually moved north and rotated about ninety degrees to its present location and configuration.

Pahu;1353315 wrote: Accurate as far as it goes. Concerning Darwinism, organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Going even broader, cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While cosmic evolution attempts to integrate in other scientific theories such as evolution, it is not itself a theory or a product of reproducible evidence leading to acceptance by the scientific community. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history—a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology). It makes use of ideas of information theory, chaos theory, complexity, systems, and emergence.You accept my definition? But your thread title says science disproves evolution and now you're admitting evolution does occur. Just in your lifetime you've evolved physically, mentally, emotionally and physiologically. The events in your life have also evolved: you went to school, joined the military, left home, perhaps you got married, had children, perhaps you have even been divorced. Your life will continue to evolve until you cease to exist. How can science disprove what you and everyone around you can see happening?

Science has not disproved evolution, Pahu, so your entire premise, which is captured in this thread title, is inaccurate.

Missing Trunk 3



Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record.

c. “...it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.” Corner, p. 100.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,” Nature, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, “Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab,” Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, March–April 1951, pp. 129–133.

J. Coates et al., “Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266–267.

Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, “Microflora of the Grand Canyon,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38–50.] Burdick was denied a doctor’s degree at the University of Arizona because of these discoveries. [See Jerry Bergman, “Clifford Burdick: Unjustly Expelled Twice,” Parts I and II, Creation Matters, September/October and July/August 2010.

d. S. Leclercq, “Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian,” Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109–114.

e. John E. Repetski, “A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America,” Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529–531.

“Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.” Richard Monastersky, “Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up,” Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.

“Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), “Explosion of Life,” Explosion of Life: A scientist reveals details of the Cambrian explosion, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.

“At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.” Erik Stokstad, “Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life,” Science, Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.

“The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.” D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,” Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.

D. G. Shu et al., “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,” Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42–46.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk

pahu;1353357 wrote:

missing trunk 3



evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record.

C. “...it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.” corner, p. 100.

A. K. Ghosh and a. Bose, “occurrence of microflora in the salt pseudomorph beds, salt range, punjab,” nature, vol. 160, 6 december 1947, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh, j. Sen, and a. Bose, “evidence bearing on the age of the saline series in the salt range of the punjab,” geological magazine, vol. 88, march–april 1951, pp. 129–133.

J. Coates et al., “age of the saline series in the punjab salt range,” nature, vol. 155, 3 march 1945, pp. 266–267.

Clifford burdick, in his doctoral research at the university of arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [see clifford burdick, “microflora of the grand canyon,” creation research society quarterly, vol. 3, may 1966, pp. 38–50.] burdick was denied a doctor’s degree at the university of arizona because of these discoveries. [see jerry bergman, “clifford burdick: Unjustly expelled twice,” parts i and ii, creation matters, september/october and july/august 2010.

D. S. Leclercq, “evidence of vascular plants in the cambrian,” evolution, vol. 10, no. 2, june 1956, pp. 109–114.

E. John e. Repetski, “a fish from the upper cambrian of north america,” science, vol. 200, 5 may 1978, pp. 529–531.

“vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.” richard monastersky, “vertebrate origins: The fossils speak up,” science news, vol. 149, 3 february 1996, p. 75.

“also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the chinese confirmed they found a genus now called yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” paul chien (chairman, biology department, university of san francisco), “explosion of life,” explosion of life: A scientist reveals details of the cambrian explosion, p. 3. Interviewed 30 june 1997.

“at 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To conway morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the early cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.” erik stokstad, “exquisite chinese fossils add new pages to book of life,” science, vol. 291, 12 january 2001, p. 233.

“the [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....the possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the early cambrian.” d. G. Shu et al., “head and backbone of the early cambrian vertebrate haikouichthys,” nature, vol. 421, 30 january 2003, pp. 527, 529.

D. G. Shu et al., “lower cambrian vertebrates from south china,” nature, vol. 402, 4 november 1999, pp. 42–46.

[from “in the beginning” by walt brown

]in the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the flood - 24. missing trunk


and............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Boom goes the dynomite!!!

so we are just copy pasting stuff in this thread.

Missing Trunk 4



In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i) The fossil record does not support evolution (j).

f. “Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.” Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

“Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.” Chien, p. 2.

“It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now.” Ibid., p. 3.

g. “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes,” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

“The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...” J. R. Norman, A History of Fishes, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?” Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes—A Causal Relationship?” American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.

h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783–792.

i. “There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred.” Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14–15.

“There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods.” Frank M. Carpenter, “Fossil Insects,” Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

j. “If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk

Just as the highest and the lowest notes are equally inaudible, so perhaps, is the greatest sense and the greatest nonsense equally unintelligible.

Renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting that they pass away

The greatest achievement is selflessness.

The greatest worth is self-mastery.

The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.

The greatest precept is continual awareness.

The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.

The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.

The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.

The greatest generosity is non-attachment.

The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.

The greatest patience is humility.

The greatest effort is not concerned with results.

The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.

The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.

Our modern Western culture only recognises the first of these, freedom of desires. It then worships such a freedom by enshrining it at the forefront of national constituitions and bills of human rights. One can say that the underlying creed of most Western democracies is to protect their people's freedom to realise their desires, as far as this is possible. It is remarkable that in such countries people do not feel very free. The second kind of freedom, freedom from desires, is celebrated only in some religious communities. It celebrates contentment, peace that is free from desires.

I like just copying and posting stuff. Lets continue

Ahso!;1353353 wrote: You accept my definition? But your thread title says science disproves evolution and now you're admitting evolution does occur. Just in your lifetime you've evolved physically, mentally, emotionally and physiologically. The events in your life have also evolved: you went to school, joined the military, left home, perhaps you got married, had children, perhaps you have even been divorced. Your life will continue to evolve until you cease to exist. How can science disprove what you and everyone around you can see happening?

Science has not disproved evolution, Pahu, so your entire premise, which is captured in this thread title, is inaccurate.No reply to this post, Pahu? You do understand the post I hope.

Out of Place Fossils 1



Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order (a).

a. Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. [See “Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts I–VIII,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.]

“In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.” David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

“Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.” Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

Wuss!

Snowfire;1353236 wrote: There's none so deaf as those that don't want to hear


What's that I hear ? Oh nothing of any significance

Science doesn't have the answer to all questions

Out of Place Fossils 2



In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (c). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (d) and Arizona (e).

b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?” Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.

c. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96, 100.

d. Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, “Man—A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?” Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28–29.]

e. Paul O. Rosnau et al., “Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?” Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41–48 and December 1989, pp. 77–98.

Jeremy Auldaney et al., “More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133–146 and back cover.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

oh come on guys, you've been fighting about evolution for more than two months. just get over it and believe what you like. :p

let's do something more interesting

Out of Place Fossils 3



Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

[From “In the Begnning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

So, Pahu, would you agree that societies evolve?

Pahu;1353729 wrote:

Out of Place Fossils 3



Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

[From “In the Begnning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils


Erosion is the process of weathering and transport of solids (sediment, soil, rock and other particles) in the natural environment or their source and deposits them elsewhere. It usually occurs due to transport by wind, water, or ice; by down-slope creep of soil and other material under the force of gravity; or by living organisms, such as burrowing animals, in the case of bioerosion.

Erosion is a natural process, but it has been increased dramatically by human land use, especially industrial agriculture, deforestation, and urban sprawl.[1][2] Land that is used for industrial agriculture generally experiences a significantly greater rate of erosion than that of land under natural vegetation, or land used for sustainable agricultural practices. This is particularly true if tillage is used, which reduces vegetation cover on the surface of the soil and disturbs both soil structure and plant roots that would otherwise hold the soil in place. However, improved land use practices can limit erosion, using techniques such as terrace-building, conservation tillage practices, and tree planting.

A certain amount of erosion is natural and, in fact, healthy for the ecosystem. For example, gravels continuously move downstream in watercourses. Excessive erosion, however, causes serious problems, such as receiving water sedimentation, ecosystem damage and outright loss of soil.

Erosion is distinguished from weathering, which is the process of chemical or physical breakdown of the minerals in the rocks, although the two processes may occur concurrently.

Pahu;1353729 wrote:

Out of Place Fossils 3



Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

[From “In the Begnning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils


n plate tectonics, a convergent boundary also known as a destructive plate boundary (because of subduction), is an actively deforming region where two (or more) tectonic plates or fragments of lithosphere move toward one another and collide. As a result of pressure, friction, and plate material melting in the mantle, earthquakes and volcanoes are common near convergent boundaries. When two plates move towards one another, they form either a subduction zone or a continental collision. This depends on the nature of the plates involved. In a subduction zone, the subducting plate, which is normally a plate with oceanic crust, moves beneath the other plate, which can be made of either oceanic or continental crust. During collisions between two continental plates, large mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas are formed.

Pahu;1353724 wrote:

Out of Place Fossils 2



In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (c). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (d) and Arizona (e).

b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?” Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.

c. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96, 100.

d. Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, “Man—A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?” Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28–29.]

e. Paul O. Rosnau et al., “Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?” Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41–48 and December 1989, pp. 77–98.

Jeremy Auldaney et al., “More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133–146 and back cover.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils


In geology, subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate, sinking into the Earth's mantle, as the plates converge. A subduction zone is an area on Earth where two tectonic plates move towards one another and one slides under the other. Rates of subduction are typically measured in centimeters per year, with the average rate of convergence being approximately 2 to 8 centimeters per year (about the rate a fingernail grows).[1]

Subduction zones involve an oceanic plate sliding beneath either a continental plate or another oceanic plate (that is, the subducted plate is always oceanic while the subducting plate may or may not be oceanic). Subduction zones are often noted for their high rates of volcanism, earthquakes, and mountain building. This is because subduction processes result in melt of the mantle that produces a volcanic arc as relatively lighter rock is forcibly submerged.

Orogenesis, or mountain-building, occurs when large pieces of material on the subducting plate (such as island arcs) are pressed into the overriding plate. These areas are subject to many earthquakes, which are caused by the interactions between the subducting slab and the mantle, the volcanoes, and (when applicable) the mountain-building related to island arc collisions.

Ahso!;1353733 wrote: So, Pahu, would you agree that societies evolve?


Why do you ask?

Conversation concerning evolution, the subject you yourself began this thread about.

I notice you have a habit of answering questions with questions. That makes you appear frightened by dialogue. Is it that you only want to pontificate instead of exchange views? Perhaps using the blog feature of the site would suit your intentions better if that be the case.

And on the eighth day, God randomly buried some fossils

Snowfire;1353751 wrote: And on the eighth day, God randomly buried some fossilsIt is his sandbox after all.

Out of Place Fossils 4



Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.



Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 68. Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants.” Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber,” Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

“ has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

[From “In the Begnning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

Ahso!;1353750 wrote: Conversation concerning evolution, the subject you yourself began this thread about.

I notice you have a habit of answering questions with questions. That makes you appear frightened by dialogue. Is it that you only want to pontificate instead of exchange views? Perhaps using the blog feature of the site would suit your intentions better if that be the case.Psst, Pehu, you missed this one.

If only Noah and his family survived the flood where did all the different races come from. If you do nit accept that humanity evolves and adapts how do you explain it?

gmc;1353756 wrote: If only Noah and his family survived the flood where did all the different races come from. If you do nit accept that humanity evolves and adapts how do you explain it?


In this context, there is only one race, the human race. Today, the word “race” has come to mean a group of people with distinguishing physical characteristics such as skin color, shape of eyes, and type of hair. This new meaning arose with the growing acceptance of evolutionism in the late 1800s. The word “race,” referring to physical characteristics, hardly ever occurs in the Bible.1 Instead, the word “nation” is used more than 200 times.

Race is a social idea, not a scientific concept. It is recognized that genetic and molecular variations among the so-called “races” are trivial, although a few traits may vary widely. Human variations are relatively minor when compared with many other kinds of life. For example, consider the many traits in the dog family. [See Figure 3 on page 5.] Most varieties of domestic dogs have been produced during the past 300 years. Dogs may be white, black, red, yellow, spotted, tiny, huge, hairy, almost hairless, cute, or not-so-cute. Temperaments and abilities also vary widely. Because domestic dogs can interbreed with the wolf, coyote, dingo, and jackal, all are part of the dog kind. The vast number of genes in every kind of life permits these variations, allowing successive generations to adjust to environmental changes. Without this design feature, extinctions would be much more common. Besides, wouldn’t life be much less interesting without variations within each kind?

To read the rest of this article, go here:

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp2934642]

gmc;1353756 wrote: If only Noah and his family survived the flood where did all the different races come from. If you do nit accept that humanity evolves and adapts how do you explain it?




Figure 203: Faces. A few members of the human race from the following places: top row, left to right: Japan, Tibet, Borneo, Holland; second row: Ireland, China, Rwanda, Korea; third row: New Zealand, Bali, Okinawa, Israel; fourth row: United States of America, Australia, India, Egypt; bottom row: Molucca Islands, Canada, Greece, Guatemala. Visualize all without variations in dress, hair style, age, and skin color. How different are we? People continents apart laugh alike and cry alike. Yes, our personalities, experiences, and talents are individually unique, but our physical differences are small; our similarities are great.

A spoon is a utensil consisting of a small shallow bowl, oval or round, at the end of a handle. A type of cutlery (sometimes called flatware in the United States), especially as part of a place setting, it is used primarily for serving. Spoons are also used in food preparation to measure, mix, stir and toss ingredients. Present day spoons can be made from metal (notably flat silver or silverware, plated or solid), wood, porcelain or plastic.

Out of Place Fossils 5



Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l). Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

l. Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

Carl Zimmer, “A Secret History of Life on Land,” Discover, February 1998, pp. 76–83.

m. Dong Ren, “Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,” Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85–88.

[From “In the Begnning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution



Evolution flunks the science test



Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.



SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28


Let us look at this logically:

Irredusible complexity- You argue that the world could not function with out all of the organisms... together. do you not realize that all organisms have been evolving together. It is not as if you wake up tomorrow and there is a new type of tree frog. evolution is a biological process that takes millions of years for positive traits and characterisitcs to take the place of negative ones, until the negative ones die out.

Instantaneous complexity- I know you just made this one up, but I will humor you. Not true, again, if you don't understand the concept of evolution, I don't know if this can mean anything to you. A frog does not suddenly exist, it started as a single cell, and the traits of a frog were eventually formed as similar cells and traits were selected through reproduction over millions of years, then a frog like creature for thousands of years adapted to it environment throu reproduction of positive traits and on and on and on, at the same time, flies were evolving, and frogs could eat. It is a continuous cycle that a favorable environment contributes to. Not an instant animal and microorganism materialisation.

Mathamatically impossible- for one thing, math is just a language we have developed to help us manage the world. two, evolution does not at all insinuate any sort of chance, random selection. It is a very careful selection of traits that survive the environment over millions or billions of years that has gotten the current organic population to where it is today. There is nothing random about it. The likelyhood of DNA etc being assembled randomly and spontaneously, as creationists believe, is impossible. I think that is what you were going for.

Good luck, I am 22. And an anthropologist, and I can tell you through personal observation, that you are a product of millions of years of evolution, and for all of your logic skills, you are still the second cousin of a chimpanzee.

Also, math- you posted three so-called reasons evolution is disproved by science. Not eighteen.

winnip2;1353821 wrote: Let us look at this logically:

Irredusible complexity- You argue that the world could not function with out all of the organisms... together. do you not realize that all organisms have been evolving together. It is not as if you wake up tomorrow and there is a new type of tree frog. evolution is a biological process that takes millions of years for positive traits and characterisitcs to take the place of negative ones, until the negative ones die out.

Instantaneous complexity- I know you just made this one up, but I will humor you. Not true, again, if you don't understand the concept of evolution, I don't know if this can mean anything to you. A frog does not suddenly exist, it started as a single cell, and the traits of a frog were eventually formed as similar cells and traits were selected through reproduction over millions of years, then a frog like creature for thousands of years adapted to it environment throu reproduction of positive traits and on and on and on, at the same time, flies were evolving, and frogs could eat. It is a continuous cycle that a favorable environment contributes to. Not an instant animal and microorganism materialisation.

Mathamatically impossible- for one thing, math is just a language we have developed to help us manage the world. two, evolution does not at all insinuate any sort of chance, random selection. It is a very careful selection of traits that survive the environment over millions or billions of years that has gotten the current organic population to where it is today. There is nothing random about it. The likelyhood of DNA etc being assembled randomly and spontaneously, as creationists believe, is impossible. I think that is what you were going for.

Good luck, I am 22. And an anthropologist, and I can tell you through personal observation, that you are a product of millions of years of evolution, and for all of your logic skills, you are still the second cousin of a chimpanzee.

Also, math- you posted three so-called reasons evolution is disproved by science. Not eighteen.


Pahu doesnt really go for intellectual reasoning. He's more of a fly by dumper of cut and pastes of very selective and dubious sources. The sort that wouldnt stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. For an Anthropologist such as yourself that's quite clear to see but Pahu wears very sturdy blinkers which restricts his periferal vision and sense of common sense.

Welcome by the way.

I hope you stick around. You'll find much to argue and many to play with here

reserved examples of various forms of spoons used by the ancient Egyptians include those composed of ivory, flint, slate and wood; many of them carved with religious symbols.[1] Ancient Indian texts also refer to the use of spoons. For example, the Rigveda refers to spoons during a passage describing the reflection of light as it "touches the spoon's mouth" (RV 8.43.10).[2] The earliest northern European spoon would seem to have been a chip or splinter of wood; Greek references point to the early and natural use of shells, such as those that are still used by people in hunter-gatherer cultures.[1] The spoons of the Greeks and Romans were chiefly made of bronze and silver and the handle usually takes the form of a spike or pointed stem.[1] There are many examples in the British Museum from which the forms of the various types can be ascertained, the chief points of difference being found in the junction of the bowl with the handle.[1]

Middle Ages spoons at Chillon Castel

In the early Muslim world, spoons were used for eating soup.[3] Medieval spoons for domestic use were commonly made of cow horn or wood, but brass, pewter, and latten spoons appear to have been common in about the 15th century.[1] The full descriptions and entries relating to silver spoons in the inventories of the royal and other households point to their special value and rarity.[1] The earliest English reference appears to be in a will of 1259.[1] In the wardrobe accounts of Edward I for the year 1300 some gold and silver spoons marked with the fleur-de-lis, the Paris mark, are mentioned.[1] One of the most interesting medieval spoons is the coronation spoon used in the anointing of the English sovereign.[1]

A wooden spoon found on board the 16th century carrack Mary Rose.

The sets of Apostle Spoons, popular as christening presents in Tudor times, the handles of which terminate in heads or busts of the apostles, are a special form to which antiquarian interest attaches.[1] The earlier English spoon-handles terminate in an acorn, plain knob or a diamond; at the end of the 16th century, the baluster and seal ending becomes common, the bowl being fig-shaped.[1] During The Restoration[citation needed], the handle becomes broad and flat, the bowl is broad and oval and the termination is cut into the shape known as the hind's foot.[1]

In the first quarter of the 18th century, the bowl becomes narrow and elliptical, with a tongue or rat's tail down the back, and the handle is turned up at the end.[1]

The modern form, with the tip of the bowl narrower than the base and the rounded end of the handle turned down, came into use about 1760.[

winnip2;1353821 wrote: Let us look at this logically:

Irredusible complexity- You argue that the world could not function with out all of the organisms... together. do you not realize that all organisms have been evolving together. It is not as if you wake up tomorrow and there is a new type of tree frog. evolution is a biological process that takes millions of years for positive traits and characterisitcs to take the place of negative ones, until the negative ones die out.

Instantaneous complexity- I know you just made this one up, but I will humor you. Not true, again, if you don't understand the concept of evolution, I don't know if this can mean anything to you. A frog does not suddenly exist, it started as a single cell, and the traits of a frog were eventually formed as similar cells and traits were selected through reproduction over millions of years, then a frog like creature for thousands of years adapted to it environment throu reproduction of positive traits and on and on and on, at the same time, flies were evolving, and frogs could eat. It is a continuous cycle that a favorable environment contributes to. Not an instant animal and microorganism materialisation.

Mathamatically impossible- for one thing, math is just a language we have developed to help us manage the world. two, evolution does not at all insinuate any sort of chance, random selection. It is a very careful selection of traits that survive the environment over millions or billions of years that has gotten the current organic population to where it is today. There is nothing random about it. The likelyhood of DNA etc being assembled randomly and spontaneously, as creationists believe, is impossible. I think that is what you were going for.

Good luck, I am 22. And an anthropologist, and I can tell you through personal observation, that you are a product of millions of years of evolution, and for all of your logic skills, you are still the second cousin of a chimpanzee.

Also, math- you posted three so-called reasons evolution is disproved by science. Not eighteen.


Where is the logic you want us to look at? You have presented the standard evolution model without any supporting evidence. What have you personally observed that leads you to believe your assertions?

The reason I didn't post all eighteen factors is it was too long. I thought I gave the link. If not, here it is: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... -Ev-28.pdf

Pahu;1353954 wrote: Where is the logic you want us to look at? You have presented the standard evolution model without any supporting evidence. What have you personally observed that leads you to believe your assertions?

The reason I didn't post all eighteen factors is it was too long. I thought I gave the link. If not, here it is: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... -Ev-28.pdf


you thought it was too long? out of all the bableing copy past crap you have done on this thread, and you thought it was too long?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

while Rolling on the floor

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Ape-Men? 1



For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

In 1995, nine anthropologists announced their discovery of early representatives of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster in China. [See Huang Wanpo et al., “Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from Asia,” Nature, Vol. 378, 16 November 1995, pp. 275–278.] Fourteen years later the same journal published a retraction. The discovery was of a “mystery ape.” [See Russell L. Ciochon, “The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia,” Nature, Vol. 459, 18 June 2009, pp. 910–911.]

How many more mystery apes are there, and do they explain other so-called “ape-men”?

b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

Bowden, pp. 56–246.

Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.

d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

Ape-Men? 2



Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g).



Figure 13: Ramapithecus. Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth.



Figure 14: Nebraska Man. Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

e. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.

g. Hammond, p. 43.

“The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

Ape-Men? 3



Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (h).

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (i). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (j).

h. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man” to Java “gibbon.” Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.” Ibid., p. 5.

“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.” W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man” at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link” would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.

Hitching, pp. 208–209.

Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.

i. Ibid., pp. 108–138.

Bowden, pp. 90–137.

Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.

j. “ puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.” Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed?” Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?