Science Disproves Evolution

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1513502 wrote: It's a common way of viewing Evolution. Almost everybody does it. I suppose it has a lot to do with our cultural upbringing. We're taught to be problem solvers so we think in those terms. The difference is those who are flexible enough in their thinking to recognize the differences, such as me and you, and those who aren't, such as Pahu. One gains knowledge and therefore truth while the other allows both to pass by unnoticed for the sake of carrying forward belief in antiquated folklore.

Pahu will say that we are the latter, even though he actually knows better in the back of his mind.


I am not sure that he does know better. Back of front of his mind. He is convinced that the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, and will leap through any number of imaginary hoops to maintain that notion, simply because he fears that if one tiny point of the Bible was to be shown as incorrect, the entire foundation of his faith would crumble beneath him, leaving no rock upon which to stand.

[Ted]

This is the 21st century. Some still want "Magic and Make Believe".

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1513509 wrote: I am not sure that he does know better. Back of front of his mind. He is convinced that the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, and will leap through any number of imaginary hoops to maintain that notion, simply because he fears that if one tiny point of the Bible was to be shown as incorrect, the entire foundation of his faith would crumble beneath him, leaving no rock upon which to stand.The question is "Why?". His entire life and all existence was probably explained to him erroneously by well-meaning people who didn't know any better and who loved him. That's not easy to leave behind as many of us know all too well. That's not to say that being honest with him is wrong. At this point in his life, Pahu chooses to continue to try and rationalize the fable he's known his entire life. He's come across more than enough people with rational explanations as to why his thinking is antiquated. He might not be able to come to terms with the idea that the people who raised him were wrong. I suppose he might be afraid of how he'll react if he allows himself to step out of his bubble. Maybe he's afraid of the real-life consequences he'll have to face. Perhaps his total financial existence and that of his family is reliant on religion.

Not always easy, though that's no excuse to continue to lie to him.

[Ahso!]

Ted;1513513 wrote: This is the 21st century. Some still want "Magic and Make Believe".Ironic!

[Ted]

I would say so. Religion is about spiritual things not reading the Bible literally. No the son doesn't stand still nor does the waters part so oone can walk across on dry or soggy land.

[Ahso!]

Ted;1513520 wrote: I would say so. Religion is about spiritual things not reading the Bible literally. No the son doesn't stand still nor does the waters part so oone can walk across on dry or soggy land.


Nor do spiritual things exist. If one wants to be nice, just be nice - or not. It doesn't necessitate a show of spiritual nonsense. Spirituality and religion, in general, is merely a phony statement of morality.

I realize it's all you've got in your life, Ted, and I feel sorry for you for that.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1513491 wrote: You continue to confuse and confound the discussion.

Macro- Micro-

Irrelevant. Evolution is a simple process.

Back to the bugs.

Simple process. Bacteria reproduce. it i basically what they do. So now you introduce an antibiotic.

The antibiotic kills of a majority of the bacteria. Some small number, though, for one reason or another are immune to the effects of the antibiotic, and survive to reproduce. Many of the offspring inherit the immunity. Eventually after multiple applications of the antibiotic, on bacteria with the immunity survive.

Evolution in action.

The same possible explanation, over the several Billion years the planet has been around, can quite probably cover a whole lot of the changes in organisms that have taken place.

But no, Dogs did not become cats, and Apes did not become human. (nore did Horses become Moose.)

But many species around today could very easily have mutated from critters that used to be around a long time ago and are no longer around. Meanwhile, other critters have survived over the eons and remained pretty much unchanged, because the environment remained suitable to that organism. (note - edited to clarify)

It's not Rocket Science, after all.


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

Bacteria Evolution?



Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations. In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations | The Institute for Creation Research

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1513509 wrote: I am not sure that he does know better. Back of front of his mind. He is convinced that the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, and will leap through any number of imaginary hoops to maintain that notion, simply because he fears that if one tiny point of the Bible was to be shown as incorrect, the entire foundation of his faith would crumble beneath him, leaving no rock upon which to stand.


Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

[Pahu]

Ted;1513513 wrote: This is the 21st century. Some still want "Magic and Make Believe".


As found in evolution!

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1513514 wrote: The question is "Why?". His entire life and all existence was probably explained to him erroneously by well-meaning people who didn't know any better and who loved him. That's not easy to leave behind as many of us know all too well. That's not to say that being honest with him is wrong. At this point in his life, Pahu chooses to continue to try and rationalize the fable he's known his entire life. He's come across more than enough people with rational explanations as to why his thinking is antiquated. He might not be able to come to terms with the idea that the people who raised him were wrong. I suppose he might be afraid of how he'll react if he allows himself to step out of his bubble. Maybe he's afraid of the real-life consequences he'll have to face. Perhaps his total financial existence and that of his family is reliant on religion.

Not always easy, though that's no excuse to continue to lie to him.


Have you been lying to me? You have no idea what I was taught since I was born. I was raised as an agnostic and was taught that evolution was a fact and the Bible was a collection of superstitions, distorted history, exaggerations and other false information written by ignorant men trying to explain things they did not understand. As I matured, I discovered the truth and put away my childish notions.



How I Know the Bible Is God’s Word

All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

2 Timothy 3:16

The more I read the Bible, the more astonished I am at what an incredible book it is. It has been published in more editions, translated into more languages, and distributed in more copies than any other book. I am convinced God wrote the Bible because in the Old Testament alone He says so 2,600 limes. We know the Bible is from God because it makes 2,500 prophecies, 2,000 of which have already been fulfilled. There are 333 prophecies about Jesus Christ, including the place of his birth, His character and His crucifixion.

We can believe the Bible is from God because it is unified in thought. It contains 66 different books by about 40 different authors writing in three different languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Yet the same golden thread of redemption runs through it—God by His grace saves us when we believe in Jesus Christ His Son, accept Him as LORD and obey His Ten Commandment Law. The Bible is from God because He has preserved it from destruction. It has survived 2,600 years of attack. It has survived philosophical debates, wars, persecutions, and burnings. The Bible is from God because it has been confirmed by archeology. For example, the Hittites were mentioned some 40 times in Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament, but secular literature made no mention of them at all, so some people said the Bible was wrong. Then archeologists dug up the great Hittite empire and proved the Bible right.

The Bible is from God because it has the power to transform. It transforms individual lives, societies, and countries. It has produced literacy, liberty, and a republican form of government. Is the Bible precious, to you? Do you read it every day? Today is a good day to let it speak to your heart.

"Not one single archeological discovery has ever controverted the Bible."

¨Nelson Glueck

[Pahu]

Ted;1513520 wrote: I would say so. Religion is about spiritual things not reading the Bible literally. No the son doesn't stand still nor does the waters part so oone can walk across on dry or soggy land.


You are saying God lied?!

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1513523 wrote: Nor do spiritual things exist. If one wants to be nice, just be nice - or not. It doesn't necessitate a show of spiritual nonsense. Spirituality and religion, in general, is merely a phony statement of morality.

I realize it's all you've got in your life, Ted, and I feel sorry for you for that.


The Bible is the basis of morality. Without it we have nothing with which to measure right and wrong.



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

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1513555 wrote: Have you been lying to me?About what?Pahu;1513555 wrote: You have no idea what I was taught since I was born.Wrong! Only a person with the mind of a child could think they aren't transparent by their postings. I was being generous disagreeing with LM about your stupidity. I see I am at least a bit off in that regard.Pahu;1513555 wrote: I was raised as an agnostic and was taught that evolution was a fact and the Bible was a collection of superstitions, distorted history, exaggerations and other false information written by ignorant men trying to explain things they did not understand.I'll ask you a question Judge Judy asks defendants she knows are lying: is what you're espousing here as truthful and honest as everything else you've posted in the past?Pahu;1513555 wrote: As I matured, I discovered the truth and put away my childish notions.But you've never matured. Like a child, you begrudgingly insist that life is not what it is. Very childish indeed! Are we expected to believe you? A person who lies and appears to be delusional about everything they post in the face of fact? Oops! Nothing's factual if baby refuses to call it fact. Right? The fact that you've discovered more babies similar to yourself to babble and cry along with is irrelevant to everyone except you children.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1513556 wrote: You are saying God lied?!You never know with Ted. However, I'll give my answer. No!

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1513557 wrote: The Bible is the basis of morality. Without it we have nothing with which to measure right and wrong.See a child's mind! It's too bad you were raised to believe that nonsense.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1513557 wrote:



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.




Actually, the burden of proof is on your Creationist "scientists" to prove that first statement to be true.

Frankly, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster holds more credibility than you do, these days.

[Ted]

Quantum physicists will tell us that atoms wink in and out of existence on a regular basis. Yes something does come out of nothing. (Aswami)

[Pahu]

Ted;1513616 wrote: Quantum physicists will tell us that atoms wink in and out of existence on a regular basis. Yes something does come out of nothing. (Aswami)


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



QUANTUM

SOMETHING from NOTHING?




Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1513633 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.Pouts the man-child.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1513633 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



QUANTUM

SOMETHING from NOTHING?




Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html


Interesting to quote something on Quantum Mechanics from 20 years ago, when it was really just beginning to be explored. And, this is all more philosophical speculation, than Scienctific discipline. A good start to a discussion, but no proof.

[Ted]

It seems to me that there is more to it than just denying evolution. It is fear. These folks want certainty in a very uncertain world. By denying science they continue to live in the ancient past and thus gain security. Reality doesn't matter as long as they have security. That is also why the Bible has to be a contract signed sealed and delivered. This also shows the level of trust they place in God, If He/She/ It exists.Seems tome there is little trust in God.

[Ahso!]

Ted;1513645 wrote: It seems to me that there is more to it than just denying evolution.How would you know if anyone is denying Evolution? Is it because others in the thread have said so? You have no idea what The Theory of Evolution is.

[Ahso!]

Click here, Ted. After educating yourself with Evolution, then explain to us how your spirituality and God Fit in.

This should take you a little while.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1513663 wrote: Click here, Ted. After educating yourself with Evolution, then explain to us how your spirituality and God Fit in.

This should take you a little while.


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



Everything Has a Cause


In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"

When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back.

Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened.

Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause—and uncaused First Cause.

A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method" is this very law of causality—that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything).

Everything Has a Cause | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1513666 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Everything Has a Cause


In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"

When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back.

Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened.

Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause—and uncaused First Cause.

A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method" is this very law of causality—that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything).




That logic is flawed in so many ways.

Logic is based upon input data. You haven't the data to derive that conclusion.

We only are faced with the idea of a "First Cause" because you assume there must be one.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1513668 wrote: That logic is flawed in so many ways.

Logic is based upon input data. You haven't the data to derive that conclusion.

We only are faced with the idea of a "First Cause" because you assume there must be one.


Which is responsible for all other causes.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1513669 wrote: Which is responsible for all other causes.


That may be a myth of your own creation.

[Ted]

Ahso you ask how I know folks deny evolution. Do you need a better example then Pahu. However I will add to that. Having been raised in a very fundamentalist church I have heard this spoken of many times. I don't know what evolution is!!!!!! You been sleeping? I have books on evolution and watch as many programs on the subject t as I can. I believe in that theory. As for the rest I have no problem with evolution and my b elief system. It is Ahso that has the problem. Science is not in any position to comment on belief systems. LOL

[Ted]

Xfrod midrash goes back to at least the exodus. Perhaps you should turn to the Jewish encyclopedia and do a little reading.. You might also read some of Spong "Born of a Woman", and Michael Goulder a Bible scholar..

[Ahso!]

Ted;1513686 wrote: Ahso you ask how I know folks deny evolution. Do you need a better example then Pahu.Sorry, bud, but you're no better. The difference between you and him is he lies outright and you lie by omission. Though, that's exactly what I expect from a pair of spiritualists. Ted;1513686 wrote: However I will add to that. Having been raised in a very fundamentalist church I have heard this spoken of many times.What spoken of many times? Evolution?Ted;1513686 wrote: I don't know what evolution is!!!!!!No, you haven't a clue, but again, I don't expect a spiritual person to admit that. What I expect are more lies. You're living up to my expectations nicely.Ted;1513686 wrote: You been sleeping? I do sleep on a pretty regular basis. Your point being? Ted;1513686 wrote: I have books on evolution I'll take your word on that, however, I doubt they're books on Evolution and are probably book that discuss the possibility of it. Ted;1513686 wrote: and watch as many programs on the subject t as I can.Sure you do! Ted;1513686 wrote: I believe in that theory.I couldn't care less what you believe. Ted;1513686 wrote: As for the rest I have no problem with evolution and my b elief system.That's because of you know nothing about it. Ted;1513686 wrote: It is Ahso that has the problem.Right! Ted;1513686 wrote: Science is not in any position to comment on belief systems. LOLThere you go again. That's because belief is based on emotion, is subjective and unsupportable. Just re-read all your posts and try to notice how they equivocate. If you understand what that means.

[Pahu]

Out-of-Sequence 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]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1513715 wrote:

Out-of-Sequence 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]


Meaning what, exactly.

Evolution is not a steady, predictable process. It is, and always has been a relatively random, and localized process.

Same with Fossilization.

How can one expect orderly progression from two random processes?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1513716 wrote: Meaning what, exactly.

Evolution is not a steady, predictable process. It is, and always has been a relatively random, and localized process.

Same with Fossilization.

How can one expect orderly progression from two random processes?Pahu has the erroneous belief that everything happens for a reason (intelligent design). He's got the entire process backward. He can't quite wrap his head around that though because he was raised to think a certain way and refuses to acknowledge the evidence. He's been brainwashed, but that's his happy place and chooses to remain there. In short, he's a mama's boy.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1513716 wrote: Meaning what, exactly.

Evolution is not a steady, predictable process. It is, and always has been a relatively random, and localized process.

Same with Fossilization.

How can one expect orderly progression from two random processes?


You have no idea what I was taught since I was born. I was raised as an agnostic and was taught that evolution was a fact and the Bible was a collection of superstitions, distorted history, exaggerations and other false information written by ignorant men trying to explain things they did not understand. As I matured, I discovered the truth and put away my childish notions.

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

Are there out-of-sequence fossils that are problematic for evolution?






This jellyfish fossil, which ‘dates’ to over 500 million years, provides two counts against evolutionary predictions regarding the fossil record: that soft organisms would not be preserved and that such a huge period of evolution sees no change in this creature, which has the same features as ones swimming in the oceans today.

In his debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye (the ‘science guy’) dogmatically claimed, and asked Ham, to cite any out-of-order fossils in the geologic record, because if there were any, it would be problematic for the evolutionary model. Due to the seeming confidence of Nye’s assertion (and that it was not answered during the debate), many have contacted us for an answer on this single question. In addition, while out on ministry our speakers have mentioned how this question has often come up. At a recent event, Gary Bates encountered a Christian university student who said this question was being used as a club by lecturers and professors to ‘beat him with’. It appears that this seeming ‘knockout punch’ argument by Nye is being used as a ‘great’ falsification of the creation model.

A constantly changing story

If the fossils themselves provide evidence that suggests rapid burial then it only makes sense to presume that the sediments that buried them had to also be deposited quickly.

So how can we answer this challenge? Is this a problem for creationists? First, by definition evolutionists would say there are no out-of-sequence fossils. They would claim that the fragmentary nature of the fossil record means that we don’t have a good idea of the entire period a fossil belongs in. So if we find a fossil in a stratum that is supposed to be 100 million years older than the species (using evolutionary dating for the sake of the argument), it simply means that it evolved 100 million years earlier than we thought. The evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is so flexible that it can incorporate virtually any new change, no matter how unexpected. In other words, if an out-of-order fossil is found (according to their standard view), then it is just incorporated as new evidence to provide a better understanding of evolution! In short, evolution is assumed and then used to explain the fossils. So, no matter what we find, by the very nature of the way they interpret the facts, nothing would falsify evolution anyway!

Fossil photo and diagram from D. Fuchs, G. Bracchi and R. Weis, ref. 2. Fossil octopus remarkably preserved in Lebanon reveals details of the eight arms, suckers, ink, gills, mouth, eye capsule and more.



Fossil octopus remarkably preserved in Lebanon reveals details of the eight arms, suckers, ink, gills, mouth, eye capsule and more.

So a better way to counter this would be to ask whether evolution has made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries. And by this measure evolution falls dramatically short. For instance, Charles Darwin said that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved. He was simply wrong, because we have many examples of this. For instance, hundreds of fossilized jellyfish and a fossilized squid, that look remarkably similar to the same creatures living today. Yet they were claimed to be 505 million years old (myo) and 150 myo respectively. The squid even contained an ink sac so fresh that the ink could be used to paint a picture. The ages assigned to these fossils comes from their position in the alleged geologic column and the dates assigned to the rock layers in which they were found. Remember that it is believed that the rock layers were supposed to have been slowly deposited over millions of years, and similarly, the process of burial and permineralization is supposed to have taken a very long time. But besides soft-bodied creatures, we have fossils like an ichthyosaur giving birth, and fish in the process of eating other fish, that capture moments in time. They must have been preserved quickly. Logically, if the fossils themselves provide evidence that suggests rapid burial then it only makes sense to presume that the sediments that buried them had to also be deposited quickly.

Lots of inconvenient fossils

In reality, there are a lot of fossils that don’t fit within the neatly-defined evolutionary order of things paraded in our geology and biology textbooks:

Trilobites, which are allegedly 500 myo in the Cambrian strata, have eyes that are far too complex for their place in the fossil record. That is, they have no precursors to their appearance.

Perhaps most astonishingly, pollen fossils—evidence of flowering plants—were found in the Precambrian strata. According to evolutionists, flowering plants first evolved 160 mya, but the Precambrian strata is older than 550 mya.

Dinosaurs are supposed to have evolved into birds. But Confuciusornis was a true beaked bird that pre-dates the ‘feathered’ dinosaurs that it allegedly came from. It also has been found in the stomach of a dinosaur.

Grass which has been found in fossilized dinosaur coprolites (fossilized dung). But grass is not supposed to have evolved until at least 10 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

A dog-like mammal fossil was found with remains of dinosaurs in its stomach—but no mammals large enough to prey on dinosaurs were supposed to exist alongside them.

A mammal hair was found in amber supposed 100 million years old. Once again, this is smack in the middle of the alleged ‘age of dinosaurs’ when no such mammals existed.

CMI’s Calvin Smith wrote:

“To the surprise of many, ducks,3 squirrels,4 platypus,5 beaver-like6 and badger-like7 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!

Tiktaalik! ‘You gotta be kidding’



Tiktaalik Fossil

Being the media entertainer he is, Nye waxed eloquently about the discovery of an alleged sea-to-land (fish to tetrapod) intermediate called Tiktaalik roseae. That he spent so long detailing the find of this ‘perfect missing link’, he obviously thought it was a ‘slam dunk’ for evolution. Indeed, Tiktaalik has appeared on the cover of numerous magazines, textbooks, and it even has its own theme song and website to promote evolution. Now, either Nye was ignorant of, or deliberately dishonest, when he conveniently failed to mention that fossil footprints that predated Tiktaalik have been in Poland predating Tiktaalik by some 18 million years. It can’t be the transition it is claimed to be if creatures that evolved ‘from it’ actually lived ‘before it’. That looks like a slam dunk for falsifying that evolutionary story, ‘wethinks’.

‘Living fossils’ are out-of-place for evolutionists

Another indication that the evolutionary story is flawed is the huge number of living fossils. That is, creatures that have been found in the fossil record have been assigned ages of hundreds of millions of years, yet are identical to creatures alive today. Dr Carl Werner has documented museum displays showing how many modern animals are found in dinosaur-era layers. Dr Werner said:

Fossil photo by Joachim Scheven, LEBENDIGE VORWELT Museum, Living coelacanth photo from Wikipedia.org dung-fossil



“I found representative examples from all of the major animal phyla living today and all of the major plant divisions living today. Taking it one step further, within these bigger groups, I frequently found representatives of all the major groups or classes within a phylum.

But if all these animals are found in dinosaur-era layers, what has evolution been doing for the last hundred million years? For example, if apes eventually became humans in just 6 million years, how, with ever-changing ecological pressures, can there be so many plants and animals that are basically unchanged from their forms supposedly millions of years ago?

For instance, the Wollemi pine was supposed to have thrived around 150 million years ago and to have been long extinct, but in 1994, they were found growing in a forest in New South Wales, Australia. Even evolutionists claimed it was “like finding a live dinosaur. And the coelacanth was supposed to have gone extinct around the same time as the dinosaurs, but we know that this deep-sea fish is still living because fishermen have caught them and National Geographic has filmed them swimming around!

The ‘Cambrian explosion’ is an out-of-order problem for evolutionists?

Bill Nye actually did creationists a favour by inadvertently pointing out a major weak spot for evolution.

In the Cambrian rocks (some of the alleged oldest complex-fossil-bearing rocks on earth—c. 500 plus myo), ‘index’ fossils of just about every major phylum can be found. Because next to no ancestors of these organisms appears below them, that is, they appear suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil record; it has long been a massive problem for evolutionists. As there is no smooth and gradual sequence to the appearance of these fossils, one could argue that the millions of creatures that represent the Cambrian explosion are out-of-sequence fossils by the evolutionists ‘own measure’.

There are many exceptions to the neatly portrayed order of the fossil record

In fact, the more fossils we find, the more random the picture becomes. This does not fit the orderly progression of ever-evolving specimens that evolutionists would predict. But it does fit very well with the creationist narrative of plants and animals created “according to their kinds, and buried in a worldwide catastrophe.

Bill Nye actually did creationists a favour by inadvertently pointing out a major weak spot for evolution. In fact, the fossil record is evidence against Bill Nye’s position, and certainly evolutionists might want to think twice before drawing attention to such a vulnerable chink in their armor!

https://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order

[Ahso!]

See, he's like a bot. That same response within a week and completely irrelevant to what was quoted. He doesn't read what is actually posted, nor does he care. Everything is prescripted and this is why he been booted from every other forum.

[Ted]

Ahso that is pure rubbish. But hey you are entitled to post that.

[FourPart]

The same old argument about one species miraculously changing into another is the false premise that Creationists always base their case on. It simply demonstrates that they don't have the slightest notion about how Evolution works. Evolution is like a language. It begins as a pure language. Everyone speaks the same language. Then, for some reason or another, one branch of the people branch off to another land. Gradually, over the years, the language changes - firstly by way of dialect & accents, then the addition of new words, and the discarding of old ones, and the changing of meanings of others. Eventually you end up with an entirely new language. After all, most of our language has its origins in Latin or Greek, yet how many of us would be able to communicate if faced with someone who could only speak Latin or Greek? The gradual changing of the languages is that of Evolution. The expectation of one language to suddenly change into another is the Creationist view of Evolution. The Evolution of Language happens over only hundreds of years. The Evolution of species happens over millions of years. Just because you can't see the hour hand of a clock moving in the same way as you can see the second hand moving doesn't mean that it is not moving nonetheless.

The fossil record shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Evolution is a reality. The very earliest fossils are of the very simplest of life forms & very sparce. Then at more recent levels are found more complex levels, but still with striking similarities to the earlier ones, then as the record gets newer the diversity, complexity & frequency steadily increases. It is what one would expect to see if Evolution were to be a reality, and it IS what we see. The Evidence is there. Evolution explains the Evidence. The Evidence continues to support the Theory. THAT is the discipline of Science. It doesn't prove or disprove. It observes Evidence & decides whether it supports a Theory or not. Evolution is a Scientific Theory. It is based on pre-existing Evidence. Creationism is not based on any Evidence whatsoever. As such there is no Evidence that can support it. Creationism also frequently uses arguments against Evolution that not only have nothing to do with Evolution, but are things that they use themselves - such as "Nothing can come from nothing" - yet that's exactly what Creationism is. "Life cannot come from rock", yet that's supposedly how Man was created - from the dust of the ground. Creationists claim that Evolutionists say that Life came from nothing. That is simply not the case. The very definition of Evolution is the changing of something that already exists in order to adapt to its environment. In theory, Evolution is not even in conflict with Creationism. As far as Evolutionism is concerned, it matters not how Life was created. Evolution is the study of how that Life has changed.

Before you argue against Evolution, you should, at least, understand exactly what Evolution is.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1513876 wrote: The same old argument about one species miraculously changing into another is the false premise that Creationists always base their case on. It simply demonstrates that they don't have the slightest notion about how Evolution works. Evolution is like a language. It begins as a pure language. Everyone speaks the same language. Then, for some reason or another, one branch of the people branch off to another land. Gradually, over the years, the language changes - firstly by way of dialect & accents, then the addition of new words, and the discarding of old ones, and the changing of meanings of others. Eventually you end up with an entirely new language. After all, most of our language has its origins in Latin or Greek, yet how many of us would be able to communicate if faced with someone who could only speak Latin or Greek? The gradual changing of the languages is that of Evolution. The expectation of one language to suddenly change into another is the Creationist view of Evolution. The Evolution of Language happens over only hundreds of years. The Evolution of species happens over millions of years. Just because you can't see the hour hand of a clock moving in the same way as you can see the second hand moving doesn't mean that it is not moving nonetheless.


False analogy. The hour hand does move and can be noticed. But there is no evidence the evolution of species ever happened.

The fossil record shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Evolution is a reality.


False! The fossil record has no transitional forms, which would be abundant if evolution occurred. The fossil record proves creation.

The very earliest fossils are of the very simplest of life forms & very sparce. Then at more recent levels are found more complex levels, but still with striking similarities to the earlier ones, then as the record gets newer the diversity, complexity & frequency steadily increases. It is what one would expect to see if Evolution were to be a reality, and it IS what we see.


On the contrary all you are seeing is the sorting affect of the Flood waters laying down strata in a year.

The Evidence is there. Evolution explains the Evidence. The Evidence continues to support the Theory. THAT is the discipline of Science. It doesn't prove or disprove. It observes Evidence & decides whether it supports a Theory or not. Evolution is a Scientific Theory. It is based on pre-existing Evidence.


There is nothing scientific about evolution, which is is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Creationism is not based on any Evidence whatsoever. As such there is no Evidence that can support it.


Creation is evidence for a Creator.

Creationism also frequently uses arguments against Evolution that not only have nothing to do with Evolution, but are things that they use themselves - such as "Nothing can come from nothing" - yet that's exactly what Creationism is. "Life cannot come from rock", yet that's supposedly how Man was created - from the dust of the ground.


Nothing comes from nothing by a natural cause. 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.

Evolution claims we came from a rock.

Creationists claim that Evolutionists say that Life came from nothing. That is simply not the case. The very definition of Evolution is the changing of something that already exists in order to adapt to its environment. In theory, Evolution is not even in conflict with Creationism. As far as Evolutionism is concerned, it matters not how Life was created. Evolution is the study of how that Life has changed.


Yet the fossil record shows life forms have not changed.

Before you argue against Evolution, you should, at least, understand exactly what Evolution is.


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 for which there is no evidence.

[Pahu]

Out-of-Sequence 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]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1513892 wrote:



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 for which there is no evidence.


Incorrect.

Evolution is the definition of the process that allows species to adapt to their environment. This is an observed phenomenon.

There is a theory that the process of evolution is how many species who did not exist in earlier times came to be developed.

Scientists have been debating that theory and several similar theories for 150 years or so.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514003 wrote: Incorrect.

Evolution is the definition of the process that allows species to adapt to their environment. This is an observed phenomenon.

There is a theory that the process of evolution is how many species who did not exist in earlier times came to be developed.

Scientists have been debating that theory and several similar theories for 150 years or so.


Adaptation is not evolution. It is simply the reshuffling of available genes. Nothing new is added as required by evolution. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1



Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

Scientists Speak About Evolution

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1513892 wrote: 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 for which there is no evidence.Your misapplication of words and their meaning is stunning. Part of the brainwashing.

Try this: Natural Selection is the process by which living organisms are shown to evolve.

[Ahso!]

As for adaptations: Adaptation

An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection.

Adaptations can take many forms: a behavior that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. Many of the things that impress us most in nature are thought to be adaptations.

[...]

So what's not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism's ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism's environment changed.

Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional eyes. When their sighted ancestors ended up living in caves, there was no longer any natural selection that maintained the function of the fishes' eyes. So, fish with better sight no longer out-competed fish with worse sight. Today, these fish still have eyes — but they are not functional and are not an adaptation; they are just the by-products of the fishes' evolutionary history.

In fact, biologists have a lot to say about what is and is not an adaptation.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 0_0/evo_31

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1514038 wrote: Your misapplication of words and their meaning is stunning. Part of the brainwashing.

Try this: Natural Selection is the process by which living organisms are shown to evolve.


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

Natural Selection Is Not 'Nature's Design Process'

The popular documentary series Skyscraper featured a fascinating look at architects using the design process. Viewers appreciated learning how this process is implemented. For anyone wanting to create the best explanation for the origin of nature's design--which is the main issue--learning this process is vital. Charles Darwin faced an extraordinarily difficult task in devising his naturalistic explanation. He needed to find a source of intelligence--a substitute god--to explain how the diversity of life could display countless features that clearly look like they were chosen by intelligence for specific purposes. His clever explanation? Natural selection.

After 150 years, natural selection stands as the only credible alternative to supernatural creation. But showing someone why Darwin's concept cannot explain anything about the origin of complex design requires an understanding of why the words "selection" and "natural" are so widely influential.

Making Natural Selection Look Like Human Engineering



Consider why intelligence is naturally coupled to design. First, engineers use a process that sees a need. Next, they develop a plan that depends heavily on selecting the best parts and processes that fit specific characteristics of the need. A special decision-making capacity, called intelligence, is vital to "see" and "select." Everyone can discern that intelligence is only found in certain living things, primarily humans and God.

The word "select" becomes the key to understanding Darwin's link between the intelligent living world and non-thinking nature. His stroke of genius for those who reject supernatural origins was to take the random phenomena of whether the traits of living things either fit their environment or not and then call it a "selection" process of "nature." From this he extrapolated the idea that nature could make choices, which then allowed the plausible conclusion that nature actually possesses a sort of innate intelligence. Thus, Darwin successfully injected the attribute of intelligence into the non-living world--a feat many thought impossible. How did he advance this counterintuitive concept?

[For the rest of the article, go here:

Natural Selection Is Not 'Nature's Design Process' | The Institute for Creation Research ]

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1514039 wrote: As for adaptations:

Adaptation

An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection.

Adaptations can take many forms: a behavior that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. Many of the things that impress us most in nature are thought to be adaptations.

[...]

So what's not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism's ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism's environment changed.

Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional eyes. When their sighted ancestors ended up living in caves, there was no longer any natural selection that maintained the function of the fishes' eyes. So, fish with better sight no longer out-competed fish with worse sight. Today, these fish still have eyes — but they are not functional and are not an adaptation; they are just the by-products of the fishes' evolutionary history.

In fact, biologists have a lot to say about what is and is not an adaptation.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 0_0/evo_31


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

Living Creatures Were Equipped to Adapt

In Genesis 1, God instructed His newly created creatures to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. In order for them to be fruitful, God gave each distinct group the ability to reproduce a new generation of the same kind. In order for them to multiply, God granted individual creatures the ability to produce more than one offspring each generation. And in order for them to fill, God equipped them with the ability to express trait variations between generations. Those variations help creatures not just survive, but thrive in different environments.

Thus, the individuals in one generation can be smaller or larger than those in another generation. The coat color or the size, shape, or number of fins, scales, horns, flowers, or leaves may also be different. But each generation faithfully retains the core attributes of its kind, such as its body plan and integrated vital organs, even after the countless generations that have come and gone in the thousands of years since creation.

Even today, examples abound that illustrate various ways in which God equipped His creatures with the marvelous potential to adapt—within the limits of a created kind—in ways that allow them to pioneer and fill the earth’s constantly changing environments. And each example provides yet another reason to marvel at the Creator’s engineering genius, care for His creation, and the accurate history recorded in Genesis.

Living Creatures Were Equipped to Adapt | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ahso!]

Honestly, neither post was for your benefit, Pahu. You're a lost cause.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1513892 wrote: False analogy. The hour hand does move and can be noticed. But there is no evidence the evolution of species ever happened.
It's not false at all. The point is that it happens slowly. Imagine a Day hand on a clock - or a Year hand - or a Century hand. Yes, we know they move, but can you SEE it moving? That is the point.

False! The fossil record has no transitional forms, which would be abundant if evolution occurred. The fossil record proves creation.


On the contrary - every single fossil is a transitional record. It is transitional between the one before it & the one following it. And you're right - they ARE abundant.

On the contrary all you are seeing is the sorting affect of the Flood waters laying down strata in a year.


If you put a lot of various size & density objects into a jar of water, shake it up & leave it to settle the larger ones sink to the bottom & the smaller ones rise to the top. This is quite the opposite to what you are trying to make out. The earliest fossil records are the smallest (lightest) beings, gradually developing over millenia to more & more complex forms.

There is nothing scientific about evolution, which is is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


That is correct - there is nothing Scientific about Evolution. Evolution is the observed occurence. The Science is in the observing & recording of it. That is what Science is all about. Observe, Record, Hypothesise, Question, Theorise. Overall to keep questioning & theorising. There is no masquerade about that.

Creation is evidence for a Creator.


In one way you are correct. The difference is what classes as a Creator. Your view is some Magic Sky Daddy. My view is far more straightforward - a sequence of natural, physical events.

Nothing comes from nothing by a natural cause. 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.


Here we go with the "Natural" bit. If something happens it is natural that it happens. It's a typical case of moving the goalposts to defend yourself against your own arguments. You say that "nothing comes from nothing", then basically go on to say "except when I want it to".

Evolution claims we came from a rock.


Evolution says nothing of the sort. That's what the Bible says.

Yet the fossil record shows life forms have not changed.
Far from it. It shows that lifeforms are constantly changing.

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 for which there is no evidence.
The definition is correct, except that there is a wealth of evidence. Without the evidence the theory wouldn't exist in the first place. Remember, in Science the Evidence come FIRST. Then come the Hypotheses to explain the Evidence. Then come further Observations & more Evidence until a viable Theory is formed. Continued Observation & further amassed Evidence then either support the Theory or cause the Theory to be amended. The whole point about the way Science works is to never assume it has all the answers. It has to constantly ask these questions. Humans are, by nature, prone to error & misinterpretation. After all, it was humans who wrote the Bible, based on Superstition from occurences which they couldn't understand. The difference between Scientists & Creationists is that Scientists recognise their potential flaws & seek to minimise them by having peers question them.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1514150 wrote:

On the contrary - every single fossil is a transitional record. It is transitional between the one before it & the one following it. And you're right - they ARE abundant.


Not transitional from the evolutionist standpoint of changing from one kind to another.

If you put a lot of various size & density objects into a jar of water, shake it up & leave it to settle the larger ones sink to the bottom & the smaller ones rise to the top. This is quite the opposite to what you are trying to make out. The earliest fossil records are the smallest (lightest) beings, gradually developing over millenia to more & more complex forms.


Wrong! In the sorting action of the Flood, animals unable to move are found at the bottom. Faster animals are found in higher strata.

That is correct - there is nothing Scientific about Evolution. Evolution is the observed occurence. The Science is in the observing & recording of it. That is what Science is all about. Observe, Record, Hypothesise, Question, Theorise. Overall to keep questioning & theorising.


Where is evolution observed?

In one way you are correct. The difference is what classes as a Creator. Your view is some Magic Sky Daddy. My view is far more straightforward - a sequence of natural, physical events.


God is not a magic Sky Daddy. He is the one and only true, living, creator God of everything and everyone. 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.

Here we go with the "Natural" bit. If something happens it is natural that it happens.


Unless it is supernatural.

It's a typical case of moving the goalposts to defend yourself against your own arguments. You say that "nothing comes from nothing", then basically go on to say "except when I want it to".


Why would I say that. Please show us how the universe came from nothing by some natural cause.

Evolution claims we came from a rock.

Evolution says nothing of the sort. That's what the Bible says.


The Bible says nothing of the sort. Doesn't evolution teach that Earth was once a molten rock, which cooled down by rain, from which life began?

Yet the fossil record shows life forms have not changed.

Far from it. It shows that lifeforms are constantly changing.


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.

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 for which there is no evidence.

The definition is correct, except that there is a wealth of evidence. Without the evidence the theory wouldn't exist in the first place.


So where is that evidence?

Remember, in Science the Evidence come FIRST. Then come the Hypotheses to explain the Evidence. Then come further Observations & more Evidence until a viable Theory is formed. Continued Observation & further amassed Evidence then either support the Theory or cause the Theory to be amended. The whole point about the way Science works is to never assume it has all the answers. It has to constantly ask these questions. Humans are, by nature, prone to error & misinterpretation. After all, it was humans who wrote the Bible, based on Superstition from occurences which they couldn't understand. The difference between Scientists & Creationists is that Scientists recognise their potential flaws & seek to minimise them by having peers question them.


Except when the facts disagree with what they want to believe. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by god.

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

[Pahu]

Out-of-Sequence 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 Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514263 wrote:

Out-of-Sequence 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 Beginning by Walt Brown]


So you say, but you offer no evidence