ForumGarden

The Chimera referred to is actually quite a good example of evolution in action. Its ancestor, the Placodermi is the armoured one referred to. The fact that the earlier Chimeras had armour is a demonstration of a transitional species - not quite still the mother species but not quite yet part of the daughter species. The Chimera is still very much a living species, but is also likely to be the mother species of the modern day shark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placodermi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera

Ted;1515006 wrote: Pahu I too can give you a list of archaeologists who disagree with that point of view.


No doubt, but their viewpoint is colored by their erroneous worldview, rather than the facts. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Amber: A Window to the Recent Past

Beautiful, golden fossilized amber begins as resin. Exuded as a sticky liquid from bark or wood, it polymerizes into solid amber. It slowly degrades when left in the open and therefore must be rather quickly buried in dense sediments. There are about twenty amber deposits, the most prominent locations are in the Baltic and Dominican Republic.

Many thousands of amber pieces contain fossils. A variety of animals are preserved in those golden tombs, including insects, crustaceans, tadpoles, lizards, annelids, snails, and spiders. In 1997, a piece of Dominican amber was appraised at $50,000 because it contained a frog. Even hair of mammals has been found. Such preservation gives us an idea of the pre-Flood ecosystem thousands of years ago.

The beautiful and aromatic blue amber of the Dominican Republic is the most rewarding of the ambers for aesthetic and scientific reasons, and holds the record when it comes to fossil content. Not only does this amber contain ten times more insects than Baltic amber, it also is 90% more transparent. Some of the fossilized creatures are extinct, but this is hardly evidence for vertical evolution.

There have even been discoveries of preserved animal and plant DNA, "Amber has preserved ancient life to such infinitesimal detail that it even captures fragments of DNA of the organisms entrapped in it."1 The discovery of DNA segments is not surprising for the creationist. However, it stupefies the Darwinist, because evolutionists maintain that amber is many millions of years old.

The oldest known amber containing insects is — according to evolutionary dating — 146 million years old. But what is found are animal forms that remain unchanged. Secular biologists are constantly amazed that creatures displayed in such a clear sarcophagus can be identified down to genus or even species. For example, small oak tree flowers have been found dated at "90 million years old," but they are still oak. The same is true for the oldest feather (100% feather — not a transition from a scale), the oldest mushroom, mosquito, biting black fly, and fig wasp. All that is seen in these organisms is no change ("stasis") or the possibility of extinction. This in no way supports the case for macroevolution, but is certainly what creationists expect.

To conclude, just as the mineralized fossils found in sedimentary rock units worldwide fail to support macroevolution, the same holds true for animals and plants found in "ancient" amber. Creation scientists aren't particularly surprised by the plants, animals, and DNA found in amber considering the youth of this planet. Furthermore, creationists have been requesting these creatures in amber should be subjected to Carbon 14 dating. A similar request is made to date the "70 million year old" soft dinosaur tissue recently discovered in eastern Montana (see Origins Issues "The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue").2 But secular scientists are reticent. Why? The search for truth should actively go where the physical evidence leads.

Amber: A Window to the Recent Past | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart;1515011 wrote: Nothing you are sharing is valid Science. Science does not prove or disprove anything. It merely supports theories or it does not. If it does not then the theories are modified accordingly. Science is unbiased & does not presuppose anything.

Scientific Method:

1. Observe evidence.

2. Hypothesise.

3. Continue to observe & gather evidence.

4. Question the evidence against the hypothesis.

5. Amend theories accordingly, if appropriate.

6. Experiment & predict.

Once evidence sufficiently supports the hypothesis it becomes a theory but it doesn't stop there. Science doesn't stop continuingly going back to stage 3.


That is a valid review of the modern scientific method, which most scientists follow, including creation scientists. But evolutionists are better described as those who replace science with their erroneous preconceptions.

Creation Science:

1. Believe Bible is everything.

2. Interpret any cherry picked evidence in whatever way they want to.

3. Ignore everything else that suggests any alternative possibilities.


Number 1 is true, but it does not interfere with the modern scientific method. Numbers 2 and 3 apply to evolutionist, not creationists. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science


The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science | The Institute for Creation Research

LarsMac;1515013 wrote: That is one of the silliest posts you have made in a while.

And definitely lacking in any real science.


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

Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils?

The fossil record abounds with the remains of past life. If the creationist interpretation of the fossil record is basically correct, most of the fossils were deposited during the Flood of Noah's day, as "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). These organisms were trapped and buried in ocean-bottom mud, which later hardened into sedimentary rock, fossilizing the organic remains.

But where are the pre-flood human remains? According to Scripture, the patriarchs lived long ages, and had large families and many years of childbearing potential. Where are their fossils?

First, we must rightly consider the nature of the fossil record. Over ninety-five percent of all fossils are marine creatures, such as clams, corals, and trilobites—mostly invertebrates with a hard outer surface. Of the remaining five percent, most are plants. Much less than one percent of all fossils are land animals. This encompasses reptiles (including dinosaurs)— amphibians, mammals, birds, and humans.

Land creatures have what we call a "low-fossilization potential." As land animals die in water, they bloat, float, and come apart. It is very difficult to trap a bloated animal under water, in order for it to be buried. Furthermore, scavengers readily devour both flesh and bone. Seawater and bacterial action destroy everything. The scouring ability of underwater mudflows, common during the Flood, would grind bone to powder.

Conversely, what land fossils are found were mostly laid down during the Ice Age— a land-oriented event following the Flood, which had the ability to bury animals in land-derived deposits. (And, by the way, there are human fossils in those sediments.)

But the purpose of Noah's Flood was to destroy the land communities—not preserve them—especially humans. Some creationists even postulate the pre-Flood continents were subducted down into the mantle, totally annihilating all remnants of the civilizations. In any scenario, what land fossils were preserved would be buried late in the Flood, near the surface, and would have been subject to erosion and destruction once again as the Floodwaters rushed off the rising continents.

Furthermore, we mustn’t over-estimate the pre-Flood population, by considering the patriarchal lives and families as typical, for "the earth (was) filled with violence" (Genesis 6:13). Bloodshed would no doubt have terminated many family lines in both humans and animals.

For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth's surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small.

On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.

Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart;1515015 wrote: The Chimera referred to is actually quite a good example of evolution in action. Its ancestor, the Placodermi is the armoured one referred to. The fact that the earlier Chimeras had armour is a demonstration of a transitional species - not quite still the mother species but not quite yet part of the daughter species. The Chimera is still very much a living species, but is also likely to be the mother species of the modern day shark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placodermi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera


The assumption that there is a transitional form here is not proven, it is just an evidence free assumption. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515062 wrote: The assumption that there is a transitional form here is not proven, it is just an evidence free assumption. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research


The assumptions of transitional forms and increased complexity are both Creationist Straw Dogs, meant to be consistently knocked down to show futility of scientific research.

The creatures that have long remained unchanged actually prove the hypotheses put forward by Darwin and Wallace in the mid-19th Century.

LarsMac;1515063 wrote: The assumptions of transitional forms and increased complexity are both Creationist Straw Dogs, meant to be consistently knocked down to show futility of scientific research.

The creatures that have long remained unchanged actually prove the hypotheses put forward by Darwin and Wallace in the mid-19th Century.


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



Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism


The unobserved process of evolution and its bizarre history has been thoroughly entrenched in the minds of millions. For decades there were facets of this theory that one was never to question, but irritating scientific discoveries continue to unravel the Darwinian garment.

For instance, decades ago it was routinely taught that vertebrates arose long after the Cambrian period. Evolutionists maintained that the Cambrian (beginning "542 million years ago") was when "simple" life was first getting established. It would take many millions of years to produce the first animals with backbones -- the fish. In fact, two evolutionists stated in a well-known text, "Fish arose during the Ordovician |beginning '488 mya'|. . . ."1 But in 1999 fossil fish were found in lower Cambrian sediments in south China.2

Several years back, this writer attended the International Conference on Dinosaur/Bird Evolution. One afternoon, a number of us took a field trip led by a recognized "expert." He asked us if the field in which we were standing could have been a dinosaur-age environment. Several said no, because there was grass present. Evolutionists maintain that grasses were not present during the age of dinosaurs --

In my review |i.e., Eschberger, ed.| of Disney's new movie "Dinosaur," I mentioned that one of the few scientific inacurracies |sic| that I found in the movie was the presence of grasses in the dinosaur nesting grounds.3

However, in a 2005 report we read, "Plant-eating dinosaurs munched on grass, say scientists who had thought the plants emerged after the beasts died off."4

Students were taught that the only mammals during the "age of dinosaurs" were small, and barely able to stay alive among the terrible thunder lizards. Evolution theory said that the mammals were nothing more than "shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night." That radically changed with the recent discovery of large, dinosaur-hunting mammals!5

One of the more spectacular discoveries that has done much to dispel the myth of dinosaurs living many millions of years ago is the unearthing of soft dinosaur tissue (see Acts & Facts Origins Column).6 How could dinosaur tissue remain soft for 70 million years?

These discoveries, while devastating Darwinism, clearly support the creation model, with all things created within one week, not long ago.

Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515068 wrote: Darwin was wrong. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism


The unobserved process of evolution and its bizarre history has been thoroughly entrenched in the minds of millions. For decades there were facets of this theory that one was never to question, but irritating scientific discoveries continue to unravel the Darwinian garment.

For instance, decades ago it was routinely taught that vertebrates arose long after the Cambrian period. Evolutionists maintained that the Cambrian (beginning "542 million years ago") was when "simple" life was first getting established. It would take many millions of years to produce the first animals with backbones -- the fish. In fact, two evolutionists stated in a well-known text, "Fish arose during the Ordovician |beginning '488 mya'|. . . ."1 But in 1999 fossil fish were found in lower Cambrian sediments in south China.2

Several years back, this writer attended the International Conference on Dinosaur/Bird Evolution. One afternoon, a number of us took a field trip led by a recognized "expert." He asked us if the field in which we were standing could have been a dinosaur-age environment. Several said no, because there was grass present. Evolutionists maintain that grasses were not present during the age of dinosaurs --

In my review |i.e., Eschberger, ed.| of Disney's new movie "Dinosaur," I mentioned that one of the few scientific inacurracies |sic| that I found in the movie was the presence of grasses in the dinosaur nesting grounds.3

However, in a 2005 report we read, "Plant-eating dinosaurs munched on grass, say scientists who had thought the plants emerged after the beasts died off."4

Students were taught that the only mammals during the "age of dinosaurs" were small, and barely able to stay alive among the terrible thunder lizards. Evolution theory said that the mammals were nothing more than "shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night." That radically changed with the recent discovery of large, dinosaur-hunting mammals!5

One of the more spectacular discoveries that has done much to dispel the myth of dinosaurs living many millions of years ago is the unearthing of soft dinosaur tissue (see Acts & Facts Origins Column).6 How could dinosaur tissue remain soft for 70 million years?

These discoveries, while devastating Darwinism, clearly support the creation model, with all things created within one week, not long ago.

Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism | The Institute for Creation Research


Darwin was wrong on many things. Evolutionists accept that. That is how true Scientists work. As additional evidence continually comes to light Science challenges itself. This is precisely the opposite to what you claim of Evolutionists. If what you claimed were true Evolutionists would not be accepting that ANY of Darwin's hypotheses were flawed. A great many of them were wrong, as he didn't have sufficient evidence at the time. However, his initial ideas were correct & the masses of evidence & consequential challenging & amending of the theories have resulted in a more accurate view of things. You persistently claim that Evolutionists ignore evidence that challenges their perception on things. If that were so, then how come the whole outlook of Evolution has, itself, evolved so much? Scientists, including Evolutionists, take ALL the evidence, as they seek to find the TRUTH. They seek to make NEW discoveries. An entirely new breakthrough would be the Holy Grail to all Scientists. The greatest breakthrough has had to have been the discovery of DNA. This has, without fail, and continues to do so, supported the entire concept of Evolution ever from its initial discovery. From known DNA records from species taken from different periods predictions have been made about how the DNA would appear on species from the missing gaps. Then, each time species have been found from those gaps the DNA testing has resulted in revealing exactly what was predicted. This is a major element in Science. Observe, Record, Predict, Experiment. Creationism does not accept anything that challenges its initial flawed concept. It is, therefore non-Scientific & is based purely on Superstition.

FourPart;1515069 wrote: Darwin was wrong on many things. Evolutionists accept that. That is how true Scientists work. As additional evidence continually comes to light Science challenges itself. This is precisely the opposite to what you claim of Evolutionists. If what you claimed were true Evolutionists would not be accepting that ANY of Darwin's hypotheses were flawed. A great many of them were wrong, as he didn't have sufficient evidence at the time. However, his initial ideas were correct & the masses of evidence & consequential challenging & amending of the theories have resulted in a more accurate view of things. You persistently claim that Evolutionists ignore evidence that challenges their perception on things. If that were so, then how come the whole outlook of Evolution has, itself, evolved so much? Scientists, including Evolutionists, take ALL the evidence, as they seek to find the TRUTH. They seek to make NEW discoveries. An entirely new breakthrough would be the Holy Grail to all Scientists. The greatest breakthrough has had to have been the discovery of DNA. This has, without fail, and continues to do so, supported the entire concept of Evolution ever from its initial discovery. From known DNA records from species taken from different periods predictions have been made about how the DNA would appear on species from the missing gaps. Then, each time species have been found from those gaps the DNA testing has resulted in revealing exactly what was predicted. This is a major element in Science. Observe, Record, Predict, Experiment. Creationism does not accept anything that challenges its initial flawed concept. It is, therefore non-Scientific & is based purely on Superstition.


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




DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

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

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

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

The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.2

But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.3

The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.4

The Evolution of Human-Chimp DNA Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does 85% DNA Similarity Mean?

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

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

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

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

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

DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515073 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:


I've told you before, I have no intention of going through all your pastes. If you want to argue the point, tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS exactly what Scientific methods have been used to Prove or Disprove anything. If you can't do so then you are simply demonstrating that you cannot back up your claim & accept that you have lost the argument by default.

FourPart;1515075 wrote: I've told you before, I have no intention of going through all your pastes. If you want to argue the point, tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS exactly what Scientific methods have been used to Prove or Disprove anything. If you can't do so then you are simply demonstrating that you cannot back up your claim & accept that you have lost the argument by default.So then why continue to feed this troll? That's all he is.

FourPart;1515075 wrote: I've told you before, I have no intention of going through all your pastes. If you want to argue the point, tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS exactly what Scientific methods have been used to Prove or Disprove anything. If you can't do so then you are simply demonstrating that you cannot back up your claim & accept that you have lost the argument by default.


If you are unwilling to read what scientists say on the subject, why would you consider my words to be relevant? Here are some of my words: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Just How Well Proven Is Evolution?

Recently I was a guest on CNN's Lou Dobbs program, discussing the difference between evolution, intelligent design, and creation. The other two guests were well- known ID spokesmen, Dr. Jon Wells, and famous evolutionist, Dr. Michael Ruse.

In the middle of the discussion, Dr. Ruse claimed that evolution is a proven fact, just as "proven" as 2+2=4. When challenged, he insisted the two statements are equivalently true. Is this so? If not, what is the difference?

Here's a simple experiment to verify one of the statements. Extend two fingers on your left hand, and then extend two on your right hand. Lay them all on the table in front of you, and count them. You should get four. If you are careful, every time you count them, you will get four. It's an observational fact.

Now devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one. I suspect even Dr. Ruse would be unable to propose an experiment to verify evolution like we verified our mathematical equation. Even if both statements are facts, obviously they are not the same kind of facts.

That's because evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know? Certainly not in the same way we know 2+2=4.

Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don't bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don't insult us by thinking that we will believe that they are.

It makes you wonder if evolutionists really believe what they say or if they are purposively trying to mislead. I suspect there are some of both.

Many evolutionists I have met have something in their own past that has turned them away from "religion." Maybe it was legalistic parents or abuse by a respected figure. Maybe it was the insistence that we should "avoid science because it contradicts the Bible," leaving them without answers to historical claims made in the name of science. A bitter hatred of God and Biblical truth developed, leading them to a life dedicated to freeing others from the shackles of Scripture, justifying the wrong use of evolutionary claims.

However, most evolutionists are evolutionists because they are victims of the wrong teaching of others. Naturalism (i.e., naturalistic evolution) is often desirable, for it seemingly frees us from the authority of a Creator God. Without a God to whom we are accountable, we are free to live as we choose. College students, often surrounded by hedonism are particularly ripe for wrong thinking, and many never recover. Either way, it can lead to ludicrous statements, such as "evolution is as true as 2+2=4."

Thankfully, most people are not hopelessly deceived. Polls in America show that the majority believes in creation, and many more want it taught. Less than 10% are confirmed evolutionists, yet they seemingly control education. They may teach that evolution is well proven, but we don't have to believe them.

Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research

That is a laughable collection of words, there.

Evolution is not something to be "believed in." It is not a philosophy, or a religion.

Well, perhaps there are some people out there who might think that it is. But, most of them are probably Creationists.

And, here we all are, nearly 3800 posts down, and still waiting for you to actually produce that "Science"

Ahso!;1515087 wrote: So then why continue to feed this troll? That's all he is.


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

Revolutionary Evolutionism

An intriguing development in recent evolutionary thought has been the growing repudiation of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy (that is, the idea of slow and gradual evolution, accomplished by the mechanism of small random genetic mutations preserved by natural selection) in favor of the idea of rapid evolution caused by rapid environmental changes. Instead of arguing solely against evolutionary uniformitarianism, the creationist is now having to argue also against catastrophic evolutionism!

In recent years, creationists have delivered telling blows against Darwinian paleontology by repeatedly citing the ubiquitous absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection.¦ The inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.1

Similarly, creationists have argued effectively against uniformitarianism by pointing out the widespread evidence of catastrophism in the ad" rocks and fossil beds of the geological column.

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophism: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.2

So, all of a sudden, many—perhaps most—evolutionary biologists are no longer claiming that natural selection was a major factor in the development of basic categories of plants and animals. Many leading evolutionary paleontologists are aggressively proclaiming the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and many evolutionary geologists are advocating a return to catastrophism in the study of the rocks! What creationists have been vigorously contending against heated denials, evolutionists now cheerfully admit to have been true all along!

Does this mean they are all becoming creationists? No, of course not. Some, such as Pierre Grassé,3 have simply stated that they have no idea how evolution could have occurred, even though they still believe in it. In the hands of others, however, evolutionism is a remarkably plastic philosophy. The model merely has to be changed to accommodate rapid evolution, instead of slow and gradual evolution. The reign of Huxley, Simpson, Mayr, Stebbins, and Dobzhansky has passed and we enter the age of Lewontin, Gould, Ager, and others of the newer school. Long live evolution!

Probably the leading proponent of the new model is the young Harvard paleontologist and philosopher of science, Stephen Jay Gould. A brilliant writer, he has produced a stream of books and articles on many subjects in recent years and has all but demolished both traditional geological uniformitarianism and orthodox neo-Darwinism. The following statements are typical Gouldisms:

Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science.¦ Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.4 All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.5

Gould and his former Harvard colleague, Niles Eldredge (now at the American Museum of Natural History), have developed what they call their theory of "punctuated equilibrium," according to which large populations of organisms are normally genetically stable for a long time, except for occasional "punctuations." These are relatively short periods of time during which inbreeding within small "founder" populations, with rapid environmental changes, stimulates rapid evolutionary change.

There can obviously be little experimental evidence for such a theory, but its critics grudgingly acknowledge its popularity.

The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists.¦ The model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground. Paleontologists seem to be enthralled by small populations.¦ I hasten to point out that ecologists and geneticists have not elucidated macroevolutionary patterns: the gap has not been bridged from either side.6

Another prolific young geologist in Gould's camp has shown that the paleontological data, traditionally interpreted in terms of increasing adaptation and natural selection over the ages, can be organized just as well in terms of pure chance assemblages of fossils:

If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see, or 9 percent, or 0.9 percent.7 The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic.8

The term "stochastic" means essentially "random" and Raup and his colleagues have shown by computer simulations that the fossil patterns throughout the so-called geologic ages can be attributed to random variations and extinctions, without the need of natural selection, at least not in terms of a gradual step-by-step improvement. Ricklefs emphasizes this aspect of the record:

Indeed, the success of Monte Carlo simulations of evolutionary patterns and R.H. MacArthur's "broken-stick" model of the relative abundances of species point out the similarities between natural patterns and randomly generated systems. It is not clear that an understanding of deterministic processes and both internally and externally imposed constraints will necessarily elucidate macroevolution.9

The explosive evolutionary "punctuations" which do occur from time to time in the postulated small populations are believed by Ager and others to be associated somehow with geological catastrophism. Derek Ager is past president of the British Geological Association and believes neither in the Bible nor in creationism. However, he has shown that all geologic features must be explained in terms of catastrophism, rather than uniformitarianism, and he maintains that this ties in with the fossil gaps stressed by Gould and Eldredge.

The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.10

In other words, the history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror.11

Ager and other modern geologic catastrophists do not, of course, believe in the worldwide Flood of the Bible, but rather that intermittent regional catastrophes throughout the geological ages account for all the actual formations and structures in the geologic column.

But the idea that the marvelous array of intricately complex and highly adapted organisms in the world could have developed rapidly from simpler organisms in catastrophically changing environments is contrary to all experience and reason. Simple systems never evolve naturally into complex systems. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, changes go in exactly the opposite direction; complex systems always tend to degenerate into simple systems. Furthermore, catastrophic environments merely accelerate the decay of such systems. By the standard thermodynamics of heat flow, for example, an influx of heat energy into an open system will increase the entropy of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system. How, then, is it even conceivable that evolution could proceed by any such mechanism as this?

As a matter of fact, however, Ilya Prigogine, who received a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, has made just such a proposal, based on his analyses. That is, he has developed a mathematical theory for what he calls "dissipative structures" in fluids, in which a high flow of energy through an open system (with consequent high energy dissipation) somehow generates a higher degree of order in that system, even in the midst of an over-all increase of entropy. This suggestion has been eagerly appropriated by evolutionists, since it seems to give them a slight ray of hope that the Second Law of Thermodynamics may not preclude evolution after all. However, Prigogine himself has acknowledged that his actual data had no direct confirmation from living systems at all, so that his ideas on the origin of life and on evolution in general, are mere speculations at this time.

Prigogine's theory is couched in highly mathematical terminology and is difficult to follow in detail. Qualitatively, however, he speaks of "order through fluctuations" in systems "far from equilibrium," systems in which unusually chaotic conditions somehow may result in structures of higher order in small portions of those systems. (For a brief rebuttal of Prigogine's theories as a basis for evolution, see "Impact" articles 57 and 58, in Acts and Facts for March and April, 1978).

This theme occurs with increasing frequency in many diverse fields today. Richard Lewontin, leading population geneticist at Harvard, has rejected the Darwinist concept of struggle and survival, even at the genetic level,12 and M.I.T.'s Noam Chomsky, recognized as the world's foremost linguist, stresses that there is no evolutionary transition between the noises of animals and the speech of humans.13 The current concept of evolution at all levels (human and nonhuman) is, typically, one of large stable populations in which recombination and adaptation normally operate in an egalitarian milieu punctuated at rare intervals in small select groups by rapid evolution to a higher order, probably through large random mutations stimulated by catastrophically changing environments.

The amazing aspect of this emerging consensus is that it is not based on any direct scientific evidence, but only on lack of evidence! Since there are no intermediate forms, the reasoning goes, evolution must occur rapidly. All systems tend to become disordered, so higher order must somehow arise out of the chaos of a more rapidly disintegrating system! Where, pray tell, have all the scientists gone?

The answer may be that they have gone into politics! Russian-born Ilya Prigogine, for example, now at the University of Texas and the University of Brussels, has made a remarkable leap of faith with his dissipative structure equations and he and his followers are seeking to apply them to problems of social change.

Prigogine's work has long been of interest to systems theorists seeking to apply the logic of their fields to global problems. One such scientist is Ervin Laszlo of the United Nations. "What I see Prigogine doing," says Laszlo, "is giving legitimization to the process of evolution—self-organization under conditions of change.¦ Its analogy to social systems and evolution could be very fruitful.14

Beyond its direct scientific application, Dr. Prigogine's work seems to him to imply a physical principle never fully perceived before—a fundamental impetus inexorably pushing life and humanity to further evolution and complexity, for better or worse, perhaps even against man's will.15

Even more overtly political is the Harvard-M.I.T. group whose spokesmen seem to be Gould and Lewontin.

If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternative philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change—the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational.¦ Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that more Russian paleontologists support a model very similar to our punctuated equilibria. The connection cannot be accidental.16

Well, he said so himself! Gould is a self-proclaimed Marxist, as are Lewontin and Chomsky, so it is not overly surprising that their concepts of what might be called "revolutionary evolution" coincide with the Marxian dialectic and with Soviet "philosophies of change."

Tom Bethel, of Harper's magazine, has written a penetrating analysis of these remarkable recent shifts in evolutionary philosophy.

No longer is unrestrained competition, once perceived as beneficial to business production and animal production alike, considered acceptable. We now live in a time when lip service, at least, is paid to notions of collective effort and collective security. One can see why Darwinism would upset the Left.¦ Evolution was nature's eugenics program. How do you think our Marxist biologists like that idea? They don't like it at all.17

It is interesting that these current criticisms of Darwinism are essentially the same that creationists have been making for years and which evolutionists have, until recently, denied. When the racist, connotations of neo-Darwinism, for example, were pointed out by creationists,18 evolutionists became indignant, but now their own colleagues are making the same charge.

These younger evolutionists are even claiming that Darwin himself, as well as the other nineteenth century evolutionists, were politically motivated and were merely forcing their science to support their racial and economic prejudices. They are now doing the same thing themselves, of course, except that their own prejudices are tied to Karl Marx instead of Adam Smith. The remarkable feature of all this is that, despite all the bitterness with which the two evolutionary camps oppose each other, they are perfectly united in their devotion to evolutionary materialism and their opposition to creationism!

The left-wing critique of Darwinism theory has by no means prevailed, but if it should do so, let us also enjoy the fantastic irony that the fundamentalists, who have been trying for more than a hundred years to knock Darwin off his pedestal, without success, will be indebted not to the right-wingers, with whom they have always been aligned, but to biologists whose god is Marx.19

And speaking of irony, please note the quandary faced by evolutionists. The evidences continually cited by creationists have finally been acknowledged and "uniformitarian evolutionism" is being abandoned. The only remaining alternative to creationism is "revolutionary evolutionism," with its magical apparatus of hopeful monsters, big bangs, black holes, dissipative structures, punctuational catastrophes and Marxian dialectic: "Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat" ("Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.")

REFERENCES

1 A. J. Boucot, Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls (Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1975), p. 196.

2 Stephen Jay Gould, "Catastrophes and Steady-State Earth," Natural History, February 1975, p, 17.

3 Pierre Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms (English translation, New York, Academic Press, 1977, 297 pp.). Grassé was called "the most distinguished of all French Zoologists" by America’s leading evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

4 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. LXXXVI, May 1977, p. 12, 14.

5 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol. LXXXVI, June-July 1977, p. 24.

6 Robert E. Ricklefs, "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution,"Science, Vol. 199, January 6, 1978, p. 59.

7 David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 50, January 1979, p. 26.

8 David M. Raup, "Probabalistic Models in Evolutionary Paleobiology," American Scientist, Vol. 166, January-February 1977, p. 57.

9 Robert E. Ricklefs, Ibid, p. 60.

10 D. V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, (Presidential Address), Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 133.

11 D. V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973), p. 100.

12 Richard Lewontin, "Adaptation," Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, pp. 213-230.

13 Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Govanovich, Inc., 1972), pp. 67, 68.

14 Will Lepkowski, "The Social Thermodynamics of Ilya Prigogine," Chemical and Engineering News, April 16, 1979, p. 30.

15 Malcolm W. Browne, "Scientists See A Loophole in the Fatal Law of Physics," New York Times, May 27, 1979, p. C-1.

16 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. LXXXVI, May 1977, p. 16.

17 Tom Bethel, "Burning Darwin to Save Marx," Harper’s, December 1978, p. 38.

18 Henry M. Morris, "Evolution and Modem Racism," Acts & Facts, Vol. 11, "Impact Series" No. 7, 1973.

19 Tom Bethel, Ibid., p. 92.

Revolutionary Evolutionism | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515108 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

An intriguing development in recent evolutionary thought has been the growing repudiation of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy (that is, the idea of slow and gradual evolution, accomplished by the mechanism of small random genetic mutations preserved by natural selection) in favor of the idea of rapid evolution caused by rapid environmental changes. Instead of arguing solely against evolutionary uniformitarianism, the creationist is now having to argue also against catastrophic evolutionism!

In recent years, creationists have delivered telling blows against Darwinian paleontology by repeatedly citing the ubiquitous absence of transitional forms in the fossil record....

...

REFERENCES

1 A. J. Boucot, Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls (Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1975), p. 196.

2 Stephen Jay Gould, "Catastrophes and Steady-State Earth," Natural History, February 1975, p, 17.

3 Pierre Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms (English translation, New York, Academic Press, 1977, 297 pp.). Grassé was called "the most distinguished of all French Zoologists" by America’s leading evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

4 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. LXXXVI, May 1977, p. 12, 14.

5 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol. LXXXVI, June-July 1977, p. 24.

6 Robert E. Ricklefs, "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution,"Science, Vol. 199, January 6, 1978, p. 59.

7 David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 50, January 1979, p. 26.

8 David M. Raup, "Probabalistic Models in Evolutionary Paleobiology," American Scientist, Vol. 166, January-February 1977, p. 57.

9 Robert E. Ricklefs, Ibid, p. 60.

10 D. V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, (Presidential Address), Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 133.

11 D. V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973), p. 100.

12 Richard Lewontin, "Adaptation," Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, pp. 213-230.

13 Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Govanovich, Inc., 1972), pp. 67, 68.

14 Will Lepkowski, "The Social Thermodynamics of Ilya Prigogine," Chemical and Engineering News, April 16, 1979, p. 30.

15 Malcolm W. Browne, "Scientists See A Loophole in the Fatal Law of Physics," New York Times, May 27, 1979, p. C-1.

16 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. LXXXVI, May 1977, p. 16.

17 Tom Bethel, "Burning Darwin to Save Marx," Harper’s, December 1978, p. 38.

18 Henry M. Morris, "Evolution and Modem Racism," Acts & Facts, Vol. 11, "Impact Series" No. 7, 1973.

19 Tom Bethel, Ibid., p. 92.

Revolutionary Evolutionism | The Institute for Creation Research


A brand new idea, supported with nearly half a century old documentation. Perfect.

LarsMac;1515107 wrote: That is a laughable collection of words, there.

Evolution is not something to be "believed in." It is not a philosophy, or a religion.

Well, perhaps there are some people out there who might think that it is. But, most of them are probably Creationists.

And, here we all are, nearly 3800 posts down, and still waiting for you to actually produce that "Science"


None are so blind as those who will not see. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted

Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old.

The Bible states that “every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind was created by God on Day Six of the creation week (Genesis 1:25)—including dinosaurs. On this same day, the first man and woman were also created (Genesis 1:26-27). Over 1,600 years later, Genesis 8:15 records that a pair of each land-dwelling animal “wherein is the breath of life—again including dinosaurs—were taken aboard an ark that would have held over 101,000 square feet of floor space. This ensured that a remnant would be preserved through the worldwide watery destruction that fossilized many pre-Flood dinosaurs.

The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur. God calls it to Job’s attention with the words “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee (Job 40:15). Thus, this statement affirms that both behemoth and man were made on the same day. Ezekiel, James, and Paul refer to the book of Job, authenticating its reliably historical testimony.

The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.

[For more information, go here: Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True

Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted |]

The Institute for Creation Research

LarsMac;1515112 wrote: A brand new idea, supported with nearly half a century old documentation. Perfect.


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





Dinosaurs and Dragon Legends


"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron." (Job 40:15-18)

How do dinosaurs fit with the Bible’s history? They certainly existed—their fossil remains are found on every continent. And ancient historical records, including the Bible, chronicle human encounters with large reptiles whose descriptions best match dinosaurs. Could it be that these records show that dinosaurs and humans shared the earth at one time rather than living millions of years apart as evolutionary myth proclaims?

Dinosaurs certainly appear to be extinct now. Those that lived at the time of Noah’s globe-covering Flood drowned or suffocated (except those on board the Ark), as did all land-dwelling creatures with nostrils, according to Genesis 7:22. Fast-moving Flood mud quickly buried some of those outside the Ark. The mud layers covered the creatures’ dead bodies so deeply that scavengers couldn’t reach them, and the mud dried soon enough to preserve their remains as fossils faster than their carcasses could decay. Most, if not all, dinosaur fossil layers also contain fossil water creatures like fish and clams, and this fits the Flood explanation for their demise.

Although researchers have named hundreds of dinosaur species, all of them belong to only about 60 distinct families. These roughly equal the basic dinosaur kinds. That means Noah and his family only had to manage around 120 individual dinosaurs on the Ark. Could they all fit on board a vessel with the dimensions from Genesis 6? No matter how large some dinosaurs grew, the largest dinosaur egg wasn’t much bigger than a football. Even the Argentinosaurus, which could grow into a 120-foot-long monster, could have fit on the Ark if a younger and much smaller representative boarded the vessel. In contrast, many dinosaurs were small even when fully grown. For example, the compsognathids stood about as tall as a turkey. The average dinosaur size was about the same as a bison. One hundred-twenty bison would require a mere corner of one of the Ark’s three spacious decks.

We can infer from the reliable Genesis record that the descendants of the dinosaurs preserved on the Ark traveled from the Middle East to places around the globe. This makes sense when considering the unique post-Flood climate. The Ice Age occurred right after, and because of, the Genesis Flood. At that time the Middle East was tropical and regularly watered by heavy rains. This set up suitable and reachable environments for dinosaurs and other tropical creatures to fill. Various clues—such as dinosaur fossils buried alongside tropical plant fossils and the swampy setting that God describes for behemoth in Job 40—indicate many dinosaurs lived in very wet habitats.

This worldwide dinosaur migration happened only thousands of years ago. Adding the Bible’s time-stamped events from the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. back to the Flood yields a date for the Flood either near 3168 or 2518 B.C., depending on manuscript variations.1 How long did dinosaurs live after the Flood, and why are they not living today?



Although creatures like dinosaurs scattered across Earth’s surface after the Flood, the first few generations of people determined to rebel against God’s command to fill the earth. Instead, they built a tower in Babel and remained in its growing city. In response, God supernaturally compelled them to disperse by confounding their languages. When families eventually migrated to far-flung places, they encountered the dinosaurs that had been there for a few centuries. Writings, depictions, and legends from people groups across the globe memorialized many of those encounters. As humans filled the post-Flood earth, dinosaur numbers would have dwindled due to hunting and loss of habitat as the Ice Age began to wane. The changing climate alone may have ultimately rendered the earth inhospitable to many of these creatures, eventually leading to their extinction. Even so, dinosaurs must have been living at least within the last several centuries, judging by the many tales of human encounters with them.



The sheer number of names given to dragons, or dinosaurs, worldwide builds a strong argument that dragon legends reflect encounters with real creatures. Most languages, either in written or spoken form, have their own unique terms. The word “dragon here doesn’t necessarily refer to popular images of a bulky, fire-breathing reptile that somehow flies with tiny wings. Rather, it can mean one of the many kinds of post-Flood dinosaurs, or even flying reptiles. Some languages still use words like those shown in this table. Wikipedia lists many more “dragon names, at least some of which probably refer to actual giant reptiles including dinosaurs.3

Ancient historians described dragons as real, living creatures, listing them right alongside their descriptions of other creatures familiar to today’s readers. For example, in his book Natural History written in approximately 78 A.D., Pliny the Elder wrote that “it is India which produces the largest [elephants] as well as the dragon¦and is itself of such enormous size as to envelop the elephants with its folds.

During that same era, Flavius Philostratus wrote:

The whole of India is girt with dragons of enormous size; for not only the marshes are full of them, but the mountains as well, and there is not a single ridge without one. Now the marsh kind are sluggish in their habits and are thirty cubits long, and they have no crest standing up on their heads.4

Such accounts sprinkle the pages of history. Alexander the Great wrote of a large serpent his army encountered during one of their conquering excursions. The explorer Marco Polo also described one in his logbooks. Although these probably referenced giant snakes and not dragons, they illustrate that giant reptiles once lived where they are long gone today. Bill Cooper’s book After the Flood describes similar accounts from Europe. Cooper relayed a report written in 1484 by England’s first printer, William Caxton, of a singular creature:

About the marches [marshes] of Italy, within a meadow, was sometime a serpent of wonderful and right marvelous greatness, right hideous and fearful. For first he had a head greater than the head of a calf. Secondly, he had a neck greater than the length of an ass, and his body made after the likeness of a dog. And his tail was wonderfully great, thick and long, without comparison to any other.5

The creature thus described matches Job’s behemoth, which had a “tail like a cedar, lived in a marsh where it ate reeds, and as “the first of the ways of God was obviously quite large.6



People groups that did not maintain written records nevertheless retain oral traditions of dragon encounters. They describe the dragons’ habitats and habits and provide specific names for the dragons and the long-dead heroes who vanquished them. Towns, hillsides, and ponds across Europe still have old dragon names—such as Drachenfels Castle and the town of Worms in Germany, Grindelwald in Switzerland, Dragon-hoard (near Garsington), plus the Peak District’s Grindleford in England, and many others.

But even more evidence shows that early peoples encountered dinosaurs. Carvings, sculptures, bas reliefs, paintings, mosaics, tapestries, sculptures, pictographs, and petroglyphs all over the world depict dragons, and many of them look like specific dinosaurs. Some of the telling features that help identify these images as dinosaurian include horns, spiky skin flaps along the spine called dermal frills, long tails, long necks, large teeth, and, perhaps most importantly, legs that went straight down from the body. Today’s walking reptiles like crocodiles and lizards have legs that extend out from the sides of the body, then angle down to the ground at the elbows or knees. Dinosaur reptiles’ legs extended down, just as dozens of genuine, ancient depictions show.

Evolutionists assert that such dinosaur-looking artifacts are fakes. However, this objection doesn’t result from a rigorous analysis of the data. Instead, it stems from an argument that goes like this: “Dinosaurs died millions of years before man evolved, making it impossible for ancient men to know what dinosaurs looked like. Therefore, this artifact must be a fraud. This kind of argument takes as true the very evolutionary history that the artifacts challenge. Ignoring evidence often leads to wrong conclusions.

The late cosmologist and atheist Carl Sagan considered the historical evidence for dragons a serious enough threat to evolutionary history that he tried to explain them in his 1977 book The Dragons of Eden. In it, he speculated that unknown human ancestor primates may have encountered dinosaurs millions of years ago. Supposedly, the “memories of those terrifying encounters so deeply traumatized those primates that they left indelible, heritable stamps in their genes. Eons later, ancient ape-like human descendants drew dinosaur look-alike pictures from those inherited memories. But no scientific evidence whatsoever suggests that memories can be genetically inherited! Knowing this, many scientists at the time shunned Sagan’s unscientific speculation. But it is equally unscientific for those scientists to assert that myriad dragon legends are all fraudulent without even investigating the historical evidence.

If the Bible is correct that representatives of all land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures were on the Ark, and if it is correct in describing an Ice Age dinosaur in the book of Job, then it makes sense to infer that people encountered (and rid themselves of) the threatening and fearsome reptiles during the centuries after the Flood. They left us dragon legends—written, spoken, painted, and carved—from virtually every ancient culture. Genuine dinosaur encounters best explain the sheer number of dragon descriptions and their similarities across space and time.

Dinosaurs and Dragon Legends | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515118 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:





Dinosaurs and Dragon Legends


"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron." (Job 40:15-18)

How do dinosaurs fit with the Bible’s history? They certainly existed—their fossil remains are found on every continent. And ancient historical records, including the Bible, chronicle human encounters with large reptiles whose descriptions best match dinosaurs. Could it be that these records show that dinosaurs and humans shared the earth at one time rather than living millions of years apart as evolutionary myth proclaims?

Dinosaurs certainly appear to be extinct now. Those that lived at the time of Noah’s globe-covering Flood drowned or suffocated (except those on board the Ark), as did all land-dwelling creatures with nostrils, according to Genesis 7:22. Fast-moving Flood mud quickly buried some of those outside the Ark. The mud layers covered the creatures’ dead bodies so deeply that scavengers couldn’t reach them, and the mud dried soon enough to preserve their remains as fossils faster than their carcasses could decay. Most, if not all, dinosaur fossil layers also contain fossil water creatures like fish and clams, and this fits the Flood explanation for their demise.

Although researchers have named hundreds of dinosaur species, all of them belong to only about 60 distinct families. These roughly equal the basic dinosaur kinds. That means Noah and his family only had to manage around 120 individual dinosaurs on the Ark. Could they all fit on board a vessel with the dimensions from Genesis 6? No matter how large some dinosaurs grew, the largest dinosaur egg wasn’t much bigger than a football. Even the Argentinosaurus, which could grow into a 120-foot-long monster, could have fit on the Ark if a younger and much smaller representative boarded the vessel. In contrast, many dinosaurs were small even when fully grown. For example, the compsognathids stood about as tall as a turkey. The average dinosaur size was about the same as a bison. One hundred-twenty bison would require a mere corner of one of the Ark’s three spacious decks.

We can infer from the reliable Genesis record that the descendants of the dinosaurs preserved on the Ark traveled from the Middle East to places around the globe. This makes sense when considering the unique post-Flood climate. The Ice Age occurred right after, and because of, the Genesis Flood. At that time the Middle East was tropical and regularly watered by heavy rains. This set up suitable and reachable environments for dinosaurs and other tropical creatures to fill. Various clues—such as dinosaur fossils buried alongside tropical plant fossils and the swampy setting that God describes for behemoth in Job 40—indicate many dinosaurs lived in very wet habitats.

This worldwide dinosaur migration happened only thousands of years ago. Adding the Bible’s time-stamped events from the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. back to the Flood yields a date for the Flood either near 3168 or 2518 B.C., depending on manuscript variations.1 How long did dinosaurs live after the Flood, and why are they not living today?



Although creatures like dinosaurs scattered across Earth’s surface after the Flood, the first few generations of people determined to rebel against God’s command to fill the earth. Instead, they built a tower in Babel and remained in its growing city. In response, God supernaturally compelled them to disperse by confounding their languages. When families eventually migrated to far-flung places, they encountered the dinosaurs that had been there for a few centuries. Writings, depictions, and legends from people groups across the globe memorialized many of those encounters. As humans filled the post-Flood earth, dinosaur numbers would have dwindled due to hunting and loss of habitat as the Ice Age began to wane. The changing climate alone may have ultimately rendered the earth inhospitable to many of these creatures, eventually leading to their extinction. Even so, dinosaurs must have been living at least within the last several centuries, judging by the many tales of human encounters with them.



The sheer number of names given to dragons, or dinosaurs, worldwide builds a strong argument that dragon legends reflect encounters with real creatures. Most languages, either in written or spoken form, have their own unique terms. The word “dragon here doesn’t necessarily refer to popular images of a bulky, fire-breathing reptile that somehow flies with tiny wings. Rather, it can mean one of the many kinds of post-Flood dinosaurs, or even flying reptiles. Some languages still use words like those shown in this table. Wikipedia lists many more “dragon names, at least some of which probably refer to actual giant reptiles including dinosaurs.3

Ancient historians described dragons as real, living creatures, listing them right alongside their descriptions of other creatures familiar to today’s readers. For example, in his book Natural History written in approximately 78 A.D., Pliny the Elder wrote that “it is India which produces the largest [elephants] as well as the dragon¦and is itself of such enormous size as to envelop the elephants with its folds.

During that same era, Flavius Philostratus wrote:

The whole of India is girt with dragons of enormous size; for not only the marshes are full of them, but the mountains as well, and there is not a single ridge without one. Now the marsh kind are sluggish in their habits and are thirty cubits long, and they have no crest standing up on their heads.4

Such accounts sprinkle the pages of history. Alexander the Great wrote of a large serpent his army encountered during one of their conquering excursions. The explorer Marco Polo also described one in his logbooks. Although these probably referenced giant snakes and not dragons, they illustrate that giant reptiles once lived where they are long gone today. Bill Cooper’s book After the Flood describes similar accounts from Europe. Cooper relayed a report written in 1484 by England’s first printer, William Caxton, of a singular creature:

About the marches [marshes] of Italy, within a meadow, was sometime a serpent of wonderful and right marvelous greatness, right hideous and fearful. For first he had a head greater than the head of a calf. Secondly, he had a neck greater than the length of an ass, and his body made after the likeness of a dog. And his tail was wonderfully great, thick and long, without comparison to any other.5

The creature thus described matches Job’s behemoth, which had a “tail like a cedar, lived in a marsh where it ate reeds, and as “the first of the ways of God was obviously quite large.6



People groups that did not maintain written records nevertheless retain oral traditions of dragon encounters. They describe the dragons’ habitats and habits and provide specific names for the dragons and the long-dead heroes who vanquished them. Towns, hillsides, and ponds across Europe still have old dragon names—such as Drachenfels Castle and the town of Worms in Germany, Grindelwald in Switzerland, Dragon-hoard (near Garsington), plus the Peak District’s Grindleford in England, and many others.

But even more evidence shows that early peoples encountered dinosaurs. Carvings, sculptures, bas reliefs, paintings, mosaics, tapestries, sculptures, pictographs, and petroglyphs all over the world depict dragons, and many of them look like specific dinosaurs. Some of the telling features that help identify these images as dinosaurian include horns, spiky skin flaps along the spine called dermal frills, long tails, long necks, large teeth, and, perhaps most importantly, legs that went straight down from the body. Today’s walking reptiles like crocodiles and lizards have legs that extend out from the sides of the body, then angle down to the ground at the elbows or knees. Dinosaur reptiles’ legs extended down, just as dozens of genuine, ancient depictions show.

Evolutionists assert that such dinosaur-looking artifacts are fakes. However, this objection doesn’t result from a rigorous analysis of the data. Instead, it stems from an argument that goes like this: “Dinosaurs died millions of years before man evolved, making it impossible for ancient men to know what dinosaurs looked like. Therefore, this artifact must be a fraud. This kind of argument takes as true the very evolutionary history that the artifacts challenge. Ignoring evidence often leads to wrong conclusions.

The late cosmologist and atheist Carl Sagan considered the historical evidence for dragons a serious enough threat to evolutionary history that he tried to explain them in his 1977 book The Dragons of Eden. In it, he speculated that unknown human ancestor primates may have encountered dinosaurs millions of years ago. Supposedly, the “memories of those terrifying encounters so deeply traumatized those primates that they left indelible, heritable stamps in their genes. Eons later, ancient ape-like human descendants drew dinosaur look-alike pictures from those inherited memories. But no scientific evidence whatsoever suggests that memories can be genetically inherited! Knowing this, many scientists at the time shunned Sagan’s unscientific speculation. But it is equally unscientific for those scientists to assert that myriad dragon legends are all fraudulent without even investigating the historical evidence.

If the Bible is correct that representatives of all land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures were on the Ark, and if it is correct in describing an Ice Age dinosaur in the book of Job, then it makes sense to infer that people encountered (and rid themselves of) the threatening and fearsome reptiles during the centuries after the Flood. They left us dragon legends—written, spoken, painted, and carved—from virtually every ancient culture. Genuine dinosaur encounters best explain the sheer number of dragon descriptions and their similarities across space and time.

Dinosaurs and Dragon Legends | The Institute for Creation Research


So, I guess that you believe in UFOs and Alien abductions, too?

LarsMac;1515128 wrote: So, I guess that you believe in UFOs and Alien abductions, too?


No, do you? However, I do believe the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Sea Serpent on Danish Ship Prow

On August 11, researchers from Södertörn University in Sweden raised an ancient 660-pound ship's prow from the floor of the Baltic Sea. The 11-foot-long beam features an exquisite dragon carving. Discovery News wrote that Marcus Sandekjer, head of the nearby Blekinge Museum which aided the extraction "believes it looks like a monstrous dog."1 It fits in well with other sea-serpent artwork in history.

Carvings and written descriptions of a dog-headed, long-necked sea serpent called "ketos" in Greek are found sprinkled across the ancient world. An online search for "ketos" reveals a consistent theme. Similar-looking features found on artwork from several countries span over a thousand years. One possible reason why all these different artists illustrated the same basic water creature—on figurines, paintings, tapestries, mosaics, and carvings— was that they had live animals to reference. But few researchers think this way.

Professor of maritime archaeology at Södertörn University Johan Rönnby told the BBC, "I think it's some kind of fantasy animal—a dragon with lion ears and crocodile-like mouth. There seems to be something in his mouth. There seems to be a person in its mouth and he's eating somebody."2

Such a creature probably does not exist today, but why not long ago? From fossils, drawings, and written accounts, we know that dodo birds, wooly mammoths, and the Chinese river dolphin have all gone extinct since the Flood.

History suggests that ketos was not just a "fantasy animal" but a once-living water dragon. In his digital booklet The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah, British historian Bill Cooper lists 13 ancient authors spanning from before the 800s B.C. to the 600s A.D. who mentioned ketos right alongside other familiar sea creatures like fish, sharks, and whales.3 Ancient sailors were familiar with sea creatures and used separate names for sharks, fish, whales, etc.

The monster-headed prow came from the ship named Gribshunden that belonged to King Hans (also known as King John). "Gribshunden" means "grip-hound," matching its carving of what appears to be a man in the grip of a hound-like sea monster. According to experts at Blekinge Museum, the ship sank in 1495 from a fire while in Sweden.1 Although fire damaged, the sunken remains of the Gribshunden represent some of the best-preserved ship parts from its time, including its figurehead. The ship resisted sea-worm damage for over five centuries.

Similar hound-like sea monsters likenesses from about 800 A.D. adorn many artifacts, including a large stone at the church in Fowlis Wester, Scotland, as pictured in the new booklet Dinosaurs and the Bible.4 The booklet also discusses the use of ketos in the Bible. Matthew quoted Jesus, who said, "For as Jonas [Jonah] was three days and three nights in the [ketos'] belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."5 If carvings like this Danish ship's figurehead are a clue, then Jonah was not the only man gripped by a sea-hound's toothy jaws.

King Hans' Gribshunden figurehead also links to ancient maritime history much closer to its home than Jonah's Mediterranean adventure. Royal records show that King Hans ruled Denmark from 1481 to 1513, and that Hrothgar was the Danish king a thousand years before Hans. According to the epic Anglo-Saxon poem, Beowulf assisted Hrothgar in ridding Denmark of land and sea monsters that endangered those early inhabitants.

Names like Hrothgar, Beowulf, and others match additional records, showing that Beowulf may actually exist as an historical figure. If so, then terms like "saedeor," (sea beast) from line 1510 and "saedraca" (sea dragon) from line 1426 might have referenced then-living sea creatures that are likely extinct. Does the Gribshunden figurehead show what an actual animal looked like?

This 500-year-old prow's carving confirms other dog-headed sea monster accounts that together build a picture of a Bible that referenced ancient animals correctly.

Sea Serpent on Danish Ship Prow | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515146 wrote: No, do you? However, I do believe the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Sea Serpent on Danish Ship Prow

On August 11, researchers from Södertörn University in Sweden raised an ancient 660-pound ship's prow from the floor of the Baltic Sea. The 11-foot-long beam features an exquisite dragon carving. Discovery News wrote that Marcus Sandekjer, head of the nearby Blekinge Museum which aided the extraction "believes it looks like a monstrous dog."1 It fits in well with other sea-serpent artwork in history.

Carvings and written descriptions of a dog-headed, long-necked sea serpent called "ketos" in Greek are found sprinkled across the ancient world. An online search for "ketos" reveals a consistent theme. Similar-looking features found on artwork from several countries span over a thousand years. One possible reason why all these different artists illustrated the same basic water creature—on figurines, paintings, tapestries, mosaics, and carvings— was that they had live animals to reference. But few researchers think this way.




You suppose those dog critters looked anything like this?

LarsMac;1515158 wrote: You suppose those dog critters looked anything like this?




A Real Jurassic World?

The Jurassic World movie, though thrilling to watch, comes packed with fictional ideas like de-extinction, designer creatures, and iron somehow preserving dinosaur DNA indefinitely. But how would the world respond if live dinosaurs were verified to scientists' satisfaction?

In 1980 and 1981 the late University of Chicago biologist Roy Mackal and colleagues conducted expeditions into the Congo's massive Likouala Swamp to track down the source of local legends. According to natives, dinosaur-like monsters lurk near deep, secluded waters.

Hunters among the small-statured African tribes described the creature they called Mokele-mbembe to Mackal's team. Apparently the enormous reptile eats the same riverbank malombo plants that hippos do. Mackal asked them to identify Mokele-mbembe and showed them sketches of a sauropod as well as pictures of familiar jungle animals. The tribesmen pointed at the sauropod.

Mackal only obtained indirect evidence of the fabled monster—fascinating, but not scientifically definitive.1 Other explorers continue to search for living dinosaurs in remote tropics.

Dave Woetzel of Genesis Park conducts similar research in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where jungle-living tribes send hunters far afield in search of sustenance. Have they seen dinosaurs? Dave summarized some of his investigations in Creation Matters, a magazine from the Creation Research Society. He said it was not difficult finding people living around the huge and largely undocumented inlets of Lake Murray who claimed to have seen a "large reptilian form that walks erect and is about 12-15 feet tall."2 Hunters mentioned that it swims with its tail and eats fish, probably similar to crocodiles.

ICR News jokingly asked Mr. Woetzel if on his next expedition to PNG he plans to use one of those glass-bubble vehicles like the boys in Jurassic World. He replied via email, "Hah, I wish I did! I am looking at investing in drone technology." The vehicles called gyrospheres are movie fiction, but live dinosaurs still thriving in remote areas of the world might not be.3

Those who believe in biblical creation rightly think that finding a live dinosaur would support the view that God created dinosaurs and man on the same day of the creation week only thousands of years ago. Since dinosaurs lived at the same time as man not so long ago, why be surprised if they live in these modern times, too?

On the other hand, live dinosaurs wouldn't necessarily overturn evolutionary origins theories. Those who believe the canonical assertion that dinosaurs all died off about 65 million years ago would simply build an exception—a dinosaur example of a living fossil. That's what Roy Mackal did as an evolutionary biologist who searched the Congo for surviving dinosaurs. And that's what the evolutionary community did when the "dinosaur plant," the Wollemi pine, was discovered in a remote and virtually inaccessible valley north of Sydney, Australia.4

Known only from fossils in the same rocks as dinosaur fossils before its discovery, paleontologists might well have used Wollemi pine fossils to identify rocks that represent their concept of an "Age of Reptiles." Finding live Wollemi pines should have eroded confidence in the evolutionary scheme, but it did not. Hard-core believers simply accommodated the pines into their beliefs by asserting that somehow these trees have survived as unchanged living fossils for tens of millions of years.3

That's what they will say if someone proves dinosaurs are still alive. After all, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good story? Jurassic World scriptwriters would agree.

A Real Jurassic World? | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515181 wrote: A Real Jurassic World?

...




You have yet to explain why finding creatures and plants that have been in existence relatively unchanged for millions of years offers proof counter to evolutionary theories.

That creature in my last post, by the way, is alive, and quite common, and probably would offer a better explanation for the the bow carving you mentioned.

LarsMac;1515187 wrote: You have yet to explain why finding creatures and plants that have been in existence relatively unchanged for millions of years offers proof counter to evolutionary theories.


Because evolution teaches that creatures and plants evolve over billions of years and yet we find they are the same today as they were at those alleged long periods of time indicating only thousands of years have elapsed. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Is There Evidence Against Evolution?

The biggest problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from non-life. Even the simplest single-celled organism is unthinkably complex, with scores of highly-sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate that even a protein molecule, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids, could never arise by chance. And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life from non-life is impossible without intelligent design. Actually, any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignoring of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.

Another huge problem for evolutionists lies in the nature of the fossil record, i.e., the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no in-between forms have ever been discovered. Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual, "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that in-between forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?

Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.

The evidence for creation is so strong; it is illogical to believe anything else. Only a religious commitment to atheism, or a desire for the approval of those atheists, who call themselves scholars, could lead one down this path. The Bible says that those who deny creation are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

Is There Evidence Against Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515192 wrote: Because evolution teaches that creatures and plants evolve over billions of years and yet we find they are the same today as they were at those alleged long periods of time indicating only thousands of years have elapsed.

...




Wrong.

Evolution teaches nothing. Evolution is simply a process that takes place.

As living organisms grow and multiply, random mutations occur. Some of these mutation may give an advantage to particular individuals within the environment. Some are disadvantageous. The advantages will provide the organisms with those mutations to succeed and reproduce more effectively in a given environment. Or changes in the environment may take place that give an advantage to a particular mutation.

Over time, if nothing in the environment creates a disadvantage, or creates an advantage to particular mutation, the organism will continue to reproduce with a fairly unchanged set of characteristics. We see such examples in the many environments.



It really is that simple

LarsMac;1515193 wrote: Wrong.

Evolution teaches nothing. Evolution is simply a process that takes place.

As living organisms grow and multiply, random mutations occur. Some of these mutation may give an advantage to particular individuals within the environment. Some are disadvantageous. The advantages will provide the organisms with those mutations to succeed and reproduce more effectively in a given environment. Or changes in the environment may take place that give an advantage to a particular mutation.

Over time, if nothing in the environment creates a disadvantage, or creates an advantage to particular mutation, the organism will continue to reproduce with a fairly unchanged set of characteristics. We see such examples in the many environments.



It really is that simple


Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Galen, the personal physician to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and his 22 thick volumes of medical treatises dominated medical practice for 1,300 years. In many ways his legacy was disastrous for medicine because no one challenged his teachings. In fact, several of Galen’s errors |in blood circulation| were not pointed out until more than 1,200 years later with the publication |of works by the founder of modern anatomy Andreas Vasalius in 1543|¦.|T|hus began the first renaissance of medicine.1

The first anesthetic for surgery was delivered in Boston in 1846. Prior to that time patients endured surgery awake and in agony. Imagine if after 1846 surgeons in one state outlawed anesthesia, forbid its practice during their operations, and flunked medical students who promoted anesthesia. The mention of anesthesia would be stricken from medical textbooks, except for derogatory references. The operating room would be a tragic scene of violent thrashing and screams. Surgical complication rates would rise, since surgeries would have to be performed very quickly. When challenged, these surgeons would reply, "Galen said it, I believe it, and that settles it," or "That's the way we've always done it."

Fortunately, the opposite occurred after 1846. The use of general anesthesia caught on very quickly. Today's operating room is calm and efficient, and surgical complication rates are much lower than before 1846, since advances in the science of anesthesia were rapidly applied to surgery.

Correct application of the latest knowledge and techniques in surgical science works today. So why not make similar applications in the forensic science of origins? Darwin published his Origin of Species just before the Civil War. Numerous advances in science since that time bring into question the validity of Darwin's theory, yet biology textbooks today maintain the Darwin mantra, "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Genetics and Evolution

In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking. Was it Scripture that convinced me? Actually, no. The author did not mention God or the Bible once. She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory. Consider the fact that Darwin was completely ignorant of genetics, having died before this field was established as a science in 1900. In ignorance, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny. Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents. Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children? No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.

One biology textbook states that "an important point to remember is that the variety of genes carried by all living species is the result of millions of years of random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."2 But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest. Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene. Another textbook states: "New alleles |genes| originate only by mutation."3 The only way for organisms to acquire DNA other than what they inherited from their parents is for their DNA to change, or mutate. If their DNA doesn't change, living things could never change regardless of how much time passes. Lizards could never become chickens and monkeys, and fish could never become philosophers. Since evolution rejects purposeful design, genetic change could only be random, or accidental.

"Positive" Mutations

The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).

The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don't apply that information to evolution. The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.4 "The human genome contains a complete set of instructions for the production of a human being¦. Genome research has already exposed errors |mutations| in these instructions that lead to heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration."5 These diseases are crippling, often fatal, and many of the affected pre-born infants are aborted spontaneously, i.e., they are so badly damaged they can't even survive gestation. However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.

Mutations: the Human Toll



Polycystic kidney disease is a common mutation in humans. It is inherited in autosomal dominant fashion,6 meaning that one copy of the relevant gene received from the parents was mutant and the other copy was normal. The sufferers who inherit the mutated gene may die of kidney failure by late middle age if they don't receive dialysis or a kidney transplant. As the disease progresses, the kidneys are gradually replaced by functionless cysts, which can cause continuous pain and enlarge the kidneys to the point where they bleed, get infections, and may even interfere with breathing.

Another instance of genetic mutation is cystic fibrosis, which is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion, meaning that both of the relevant inherited genes are mutant. Patients with this condition are burdened with mucous-plugging defects in their lungs and pancreas. Beginning in childhood they remain susceptible to frequent, sometimes very dangerous, pneumonias. Insufficient amounts of pancreatic enzymes are available to properly digest food, requiring pancreatic enzyme replacements. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis are usually sterile, and may die in young adulthood even with expert medical care.

The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino acid-long ion transport protein.7 The human genome has three billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA.8 Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human? The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much higher). Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief.

One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.

Equivocally Beneficial

Virtually all the "beneficial mutations" known are only equivocally beneficial, not unequivocally beneficial. In bacteria, several mutations in cell wall proteins may deform the proteins enough so that antibiotics cannot bind to the mutant bacteria. This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria. That is, the resistant (mutant) bacteria will only do well in an artificial situation, where it is placed in a culture medium with the antibiotic. Only then can it overgrow at the expense of the native bacteria. In the wild, the native bacteria are always more vigorous than the mutant bacteria.

In humans there is one equivocally beneficial mutation, out of 4,000 devastating mutations: sickle cell anemia. It is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion and occurs mainly in individuals of African descent. It has been traced to a mutation of one nucleotide in a gene coding for hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in our blood. Normal red blood cells may sickle in the heterozygote (sickle trait, with one mutated and one normal gene) or the homozygote (sickle disease, with two mutated genes), but sickling is more likely to occur in the homozygote. Normal red cells are round, but sickled red cells are misshapen, like sickles. Sickle crisis occurs when red cells sickle and clog the arteries to parts of organs. Organs then undergo infarction (death from lack of blood supply). Without medical support the homozygotes are likely to die in young to middle age.

But there is one positive. Heterozygotes in Africa, where malaria is endemic, are more resistant to malaria than people with normal hemoglobin, and the heterozygote genotype may have a survival advantage, but only in those areas. Could this be a limited example of evolutionary progress? Not really. When the mutant sickle gene is latent (i.e., sickling isn't occurring), there is a survival advantage in areas with malaria. But whenever sickling occurs, in the heterozygote or the homozygote, it obstructs blood vessels and causes pain and death to organs.

According to evolution, all genes that are expressed are merely mutations. Actually, the expression, not just the latency, of all our genes is positive when expressed. Sickling is always negative when it occurs, so it remains a very poor example of evolution, and in fact refutes it. Evolution theorists have yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation.

Random Change Destroys Function

The mutations described above are those that, when expressed, cause phenotypic (physically observable) changes in organisms. However, the majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal. These mutations can only be detected by DNA sequencing and are not candidates for evolutionary processes at all. Since there is no phenotypic change, natural selection cannot even remotely select for them. And they are not totally neutral, but are rather subtly deleterious because they degrade the genetic code. A better term for these neutral mutations is "near-neutral." Research is demonstrating that the "near-neutral" mutations are accumulating far too rapidly for organisms to have avoided extinction if they indeed have existed over the millions of years claimed by evolutionary biologists.10 Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on. The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.

Evolutionary science teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals--eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA--arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA. Consider the construction and operation of a machine. If random changes are made to a machine or the blueprint that codes for the construction of the machine, will that help its function? Absolutely not. Random changes occur every day that destroy the manufacture and function of machines. Likewise, random changes to information destroy the function and outcome of that information.

Observational (i.e., scientific) evidence, as seen in medical research every day, leads one to be skeptical of the claims of evolutionary biology. How does science explain that mythical first bacterial cell three billion years ago? Did it transform itself--by random mutations in the DNA--into all the "wondrous profusion" of life forms (one million species), and all their wondrous functional organs, over an imaginary time period? The evidence says no.

Firing a Gunshot

"A mutation that alters a protein enough to affect its function is more often harmful than beneficial. Organisms are the refined products of selection, and a random change is not likely to improve the genome anymore than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance. On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele |gene| may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual."11

While instructing students that harmful mutations were more numerous than "beneficial" mutations, this textbook failed to disclose that even equivocally beneficial mutations (which still have a downside) are extremely rare (about one in 10,000), and that unequivocally beneficial mutations are nonexistent in nature. There may be a few times when the gun was fired through the hood and resulted in no immediate harm to the engine. However, improving the engine in this manner would be impossible.

In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed.

[For the conclusion, go here:

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research

More Straw Dogs for you to knock down.

And still no science.

LarsMac;1515211 wrote: More Straw Dogs for you to knock down.

And still no science.


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




Scientists Late to Recognize Human and Giant Mammal Coexistence

Giant mammals roamed North America during the Ice Age, but were humans among them? A site in Vero Beach on Florida's East coast contains mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth—and human fossils. The problem is that humans were not yet supposed to have been there, according to the standard story told to generations of archaeologists.

When discovered in the early 1900s, researchers insisted that the Vero Beach human remains washed in long after the large mammals fossilized. But new results, like so many other similar reinvestigations of old sites, show they were made at the same time and that humans lived and died in North America long before believed. What took researchers so long to acknowledge that?

The reason why it took so long for the evidence to come to light may be the same reason why fossil evidence of humans and dinosaurs is so scarce.

Archaeologists at the University of Florida analyzed the concentrations of rare earth elements in the various bones from the Vero site, finding that they all statistically matched.1 This evidence shows that they were buried simultaneously, and it contradicts longstanding dogma that humans had not yet arrived in America.

Supposedly, the earliest Americans were the Clovis peoples, who left tool caches in New Mexico caves that researchers discovered in the early and middle 20th century. However, all this new evidence of pre-Clovis peoples is finally forcing a broad-scale revision of history.

Nature recently reviewed some of the pre-Clovis evidences that include fossil dung from a cave in Oregon, campsite remains from Chile, stone tools from Salado, Texas,2 and "sites in Tennessee and Florida, where evidence of pre-Clovis mammoth hunting was uncovered in the 1980s and 1990s."3 And now, the Vero Beach evidence adds to the "slow avalanche of findings."3

Well, the evidence was not slow, but the willingness to investigate and report the evidence has been very slow, since some of these pre-Clovis sites were discovered decades ago. Has some factor other than archaeological evidence played a role in suppressing the evidence of pre-Clovis peoples?

Adherence to a particular narrative apparently holds a stronger sway than evidence contradicting that narrative. For example, one longstanding narrative that held an iron sway for so long among archaeologists told that ancients migrated across the Bering land bridge during the Ice Age, from Asia to America. But lately, some dare to suggest that the ancients instead travelled by boats along the coast, called "coastal migration." An even more rare dissenting voice suggests that they floated straight across the Atlantic.

Why were these alternative ideas so long in coming? University of Oregon archaeologist Jon Erlandson told Nature, "I was once warned not to write about coastal migration in my dissertation. My adviser said I would ruin my career."3

If a career can be ruined over as trivial a matter as challenging a North American Ice Age migration story, how much more easily would it be ruined by a researcher challenging the story of dinosaur extinction millions of years before man by daring to consider evidence of human and dinosaurs having lived together?

Certainly, for many years dogmatic adherence to the Clovis-first narrative suppressed the most straightforward interpretation of field evidence for pre-Clovis peoples. Similarly, the dogma of human evolution caused researchers to misidentify human foot bones found in Africa as belonging to an extinct ape.4 Who knows what human fossils may have been discovered in even deeper earth layers, but misidentified because they didn't fit the evolution narrative?

Scientists Late to Recognize Human and Giant Mammal Coexistence | The Institute for Creation Research

Ape-Men? 1



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

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

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

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

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

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

“We have all see [sic] the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh [tidy, but sheer nonsense]. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of Homo sapiens, but pathological, or an ape. Henry Gee, “Craniums with Clout, Nature, Vol.*478, 6*October 2011, p.*34.

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

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

Bowden, pp. 56–246.

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1515235 wrote:

Ape-Men? 1



...

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Since the dawn of time, men have easily believed what they wished hear, instead of trying to understand what was true.

Your lot are the perfect examples.

LarsMac;1515237 wrote: Since the dawn of time, men have easily believed what they wished hear, instead of trying to understand what was true.

Your lot are the perfect examples.


Actually, the perfect example is evolutionists/atheists. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Rare Fossil Pterosaur a Reminder of Native Legends

A newly described fossil consists of a flying reptile with a smaller fish in its throat and a larger fish biting its wing.

The flying reptile, a Rhamphorhynchus pterosaur discovered in the famous Solnhofen Limestone in southern Germany, had apparently been skimming the water surface when a large extinct fish called an Aspidorhynchus caught its wing. The violent scene seems similar to Native American legends of flying reptiles.

For instance, the Sioux Nation has a rich tradition of passing down stories orally from generation to generation. Some of their legends tell of large flying reptiles that hunted water creatures.

Although many Native Americans associated these "thunderbirds" with mystical origins and powers, ancient ancestors of these people groups could have witnessed actual creatures. The Reverend Gideon Pond was the first resident missionary among the Dakota Sioux of Minnesota.1 Fossil historian Adrienne Mayor quoted Pond, who wrote in the late 1830s, "Many stories are told of these beings and their mortal combats."2

The Dakota Sioux called the thunderbirds "wakinyan," and they could point out "collapsed river bluffs, very common along the Missouri River, as places where Thunder Birds had swooped down to attack Unktehi [a monstrous water reptile] and its relatives."2

The German find was not as huge as the creatures portrayed in the legends, but fossils show that some pterosaurs had wingspans up to 40 feet. Fossils also show that huge water reptiles, perhaps like those in the Native American stories, once existed. And according to the Bible, all these creatures were made during the same creation week along with mankind, so they all co-existed for many years.

The most striking similarity between this fossil discovery and the legends is more in behavior than in size. Eberhard Frey and Helmut Tischlinger published the fossil description in the online journal PLoS ONE. They wrote, "Large Aspidorhynchus thus could grab a skimming Rhamphorhynchus by just raising the head through the water surface. The specimen presented here strongly suggests that Aspidorhynchus actually did exactly this."3

This unique set of fossils appears to corroborate ancient Native American legends of flying reptiles that fished the water's surface and of sea creatures that in turn preyed on the flyers. Evolution has no explanation for any such eyewitness accounts, but both the legends and fossil data are easy to interpret in the framework of a young world in which pterosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Rare Fossil Pterosaur a Reminder of Native Legends | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515255 wrote: Actually, the perfect example is evolutionists/atheists. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Rare Fossil Pterosaur a Reminder of Native Legends

A newly described fossil consists of a flying reptile with a smaller fish in its throat and a larger fish biting its wing.

The flying reptile, a Rhamphorhynchus pterosaur discovered in the famous Solnhofen Limestone in southern Germany, had apparently been skimming the water surface when a large extinct fish called an Aspidorhynchus caught its wing. The violent scene seems similar to Native American legends of flying reptiles.

For instance, the Sioux Nation has a rich tradition of passing down stories orally from generation to generation. Some of their legends tell of large flying reptiles that hunted water creatures.

Although many Native Americans associated these "thunderbirds" with mystical origins and powers, ancient ancestors of these people groups could have witnessed actual creatures. The Reverend Gideon Pond was the first resident missionary among the Dakota Sioux of Minnesota.1 Fossil historian Adrienne Mayor quoted Pond, who wrote in the late 1830s, "Many stories are told of these beings and their mortal combats."2

The Dakota Sioux called the thunderbirds "wakinyan," and they could point out "collapsed river bluffs, very common along the Missouri River, as places where Thunder Birds had swooped down to attack Unktehi [a monstrous water reptile] and its relatives."2

The German find was not as huge as the creatures portrayed in the legends, but fossils show that some pterosaurs had wingspans up to 40 feet. Fossils also show that huge water reptiles, perhaps like those in the Native American stories, once existed. And according to the Bible, all these creatures were made during the same creation week along with mankind, so they all co-existed for many years.

The most striking similarity between this fossil discovery and the legends is more in behavior than in size. Eberhard Frey and Helmut Tischlinger published the fossil description in the online journal PLoS ONE. They wrote, "Large Aspidorhynchus thus could grab a skimming Rhamphorhynchus by just raising the head through the water surface. The specimen presented here strongly suggests that Aspidorhynchus actually did exactly this."3

This unique set of fossils appears to corroborate ancient Native American legends of flying reptiles that fished the water's surface and of sea creatures that in turn preyed on the flyers. Evolution has no explanation for any such eyewitness accounts, but both the legends and fossil data are easy to interpret in the framework of a young world in which pterosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Rare Fossil Pterosaur a Reminder of Native Legends | The Institute for Creation Research


Fitting, somehow, that you now try to use myths to disprove Science.

LarsMac;1515258 wrote: Fitting, somehow, that you now try to use myths to disprove Science.


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




Utah Dinosaur Petroglyph Disputed

Underneath a spectacular rock formation in Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah is a rock carving that resembles a sauropod dinosaur. The petroglyph has been presented as evidence supporting the biblical creation model prediction that man and dinosaurs lived together. In a new report, researchers claim to "discredit" this interesting artifact. How successful was their effort?

Sauropods, such as Diplodocus, were dinosaurs that walked on four feet. According to the evolution-assigned ages of the rock layers in which their fossils are found, sauropods died out 65 million years ago.1 Thus, there should be no evidence of any kind that humans, who supposedly arrived on earth about two million years ago, interacted with long-dead dinosaurs.2

Evolutionary biologist Phil Senter was initially impressed with what he saw in Utah. He told Discovery News, "We got there and I couldn't believe it. It looked just like a sauropod."3 However, he co-authored a paper in the online journal Paleontologica Electronica that asserts the sauropod-like image is not what it appears to be. Instead, Senter and western glyph expert Sally Cole wrote that it is "a composite of two separate petroglyphs" and that its apparent "legs" were created by a mud or mineral stain.4 They claimed that this artifact is now officially discredited, which of course would be good news for evolution's "dinosaur age" and bad news for the creation model of earth history. Fortunately, since the "methods" used in this study involved mostly just looking at the artifact, virtually anyone can cross-check these authors' observations.

Also fortunately, Institute for Creation Research IT Manager Daryl Robbins documented this petroglyph during a mission trip to an area Navajo reservation in the summer of 2010. Do his photographs accompanying this article support the new claim that what looks like a sauropod is actually a combination of a snake and a stain?

To make this and similar rock-carved images, ancient natives used an object to chip away original rock material in a process called "pecking," which leaves behind tiny divots. Senter and Cole stated, "The 'legs' are not part of the image and are not pecked or otherwise human-made but are stains of mud or some light-colored mineral on the irregular surface."4 As their sketch below shows, they maintain that what looks like a dinosaur is really a snake glyph with a stain below it.





However, peck marks extend down into the presumed body of this petroglyph, even extending down into the area where front legs should be. Their sketch shows a snake or tube, but where in the actual glyph is the line for the snake's belly, where the pecking should stop and the stains start? For that matter, perhaps the artist was depicting the creature in its natural watery habitat, which would obscure the legs. If so, then this would lend even more credibility to the sauropod interpretation of the glyph.

The body and some leg-area pecking divots were obvious to Robbins, who after reading Senter and Cole's report said, "From my picture [below], it is clear that the whole dinosaur shape is chipped into the rock surface, not just a mud stain. It's pretty sad when a lowly IT guy does better science investigation than scientists."





There is a difference between being debunked and just being declared debunked. Perhaps this petroglyph has not really been discredited as a dinosaur after all.

To be fair, this particular dinosaurian representation is not the highest quality of its kind. ICR Senior Science Lecturer Frank Sherwin visited this petroglyph a number of years ago. He commented that although it looked interesting to him, he did not consider it to be as compelling as other historical evidence—such as dinosaur original soft tissues,5 written or sculpted eyewitness accounts of dragon encounters from all over the world,6 or certain Bible passages like Job 40—that have convinced him that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous. The case for creation does not hinge on this one Utah artifact.

Those who claim to have "debunked" evidence of man and dinosaur coexistence have an admitted staunch evolutionary bias. Senter and Cole put it this way:

The findings of mainstream geology have firmly established that non-avian dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago when the Mesozoic Era gave way to the Cenozoic Era, and that Homo sapiens appeared less than one million years ago.4

But this statement is inaccurate. Mainstream geologists did not "find" evidence in favor of this view but have merely accommodated evidence into the pre-existing evolutionary scheme. For example, the very technique used to "determine" the age of a particular dinosaur fossil is circular. They first see whether it is a dinosaur fossil. If so, then the fossil is assigned an age of no younger than "65 million years" because that number marks the end of the "age of dinosaurs" in textbook diagrams. But this is a bad, self-serving technique.

Historian Adrienne Mayor investigated Native American legends and artifacts depicting dinosaur-like creatures and stated the real reason evolutionists believe these evidences cannot possibly be interpreted in the most straightforward way. She stated, "No human beings ever saw a living dinosaur, unless they could magically travel back in time more than 65 million years."7 Thus, the religiously held doctrine of millions of years, not the evidence itself, forces these evolutionists to try to "debunk" what would otherwise be a plain testimony: that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Utah Dinosaur Petroglyph Disputed | The Institute for Creation Research

Have you ever watched the clouds go by and thought you saw one in the shape of an animal, or seen the “man in the moon? These are examples of pareidolia—seeing what we believe to be a significant shape or pattern when it isn’t really there. This phenomenon also explains the “dinosaur on Kachina Bridge. Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the “sauropod dinosaur turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains. It is definitely not a depiction of a single animal, and, viewed in detail, it looks nothing like a dinosaur. The separate carvings and mud stains only look like a dinosaur to those wishing to find one there.

While certainly the most prominent, the supposed sauropod was not the only dinosaur carving creationists thought they saw on the bridge. Three other dinosaur depictions have been said to exist, but Senter and Cole easily debunked these, as well. One of the “dinosaurs was nothing but a mud stain; a proposed Triceratops was just a composite of petroglyphs that do not represent animals, and what has been described as a carving of Monoclonius was nothing more than an enigmatic squiggle. There are no dinosaur carvings on Kachina Bridge.

The Kachina Bridge petroglyphs were not hoaxes or frauds. They were carved by people who once lived in the region, but there is no indication that any of them represent animals, living or extinct. What creationists thought they saw in the rocks has turned out to be an illusion, but I wonder how many of them will actually admit their mistake?



Read more:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -96018102/

Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv

Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

LarsMac;1515297 wrote: Have you ever watched the clouds go by and thought you saw one in the shape of an animal, or seen the “man in the moon? These are examples of pareidolia—seeing what we believe to be a significant shape or pattern when it isn’t really there. This phenomenon also explains the “dinosaur on Kachina Bridge. Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the “sauropod dinosaur turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains. It is definitely not a depiction of a single animal, and, viewed in detail, it looks nothing like a dinosaur. The separate carvings and mud stains only look like a dinosaur to those wishing to find one there.

While certainly the most prominent, the supposed sauropod was not the only dinosaur carving creationists thought they saw on the bridge. Three other dinosaur depictions have been said to exist, but Senter and Cole easily debunked these, as well. One of the “dinosaurs was nothing but a mud stain; a proposed Triceratops was just a composite of petroglyphs that do not represent animals, and what has been described as a carving of Monoclonius was nothing more than an enigmatic squiggle. There are no dinosaur carvings on Kachina Bridge.

The Kachina Bridge petroglyphs were not hoaxes or frauds. They were carved by people who once lived in the region, but there is no indication that any of them represent animals, living or extinct. What creationists thought they saw in the rocks has turned out to be an illusion, but I wonder how many of them will actually admit their mistake?



Read more:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -96018102/

Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv

Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


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





Proof Man and Dinosaurs Lived Together



Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)



This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!



This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!



Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.



Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?



More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.



This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?

Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.



This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.







The Alvis Delk Track

This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.

Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.



The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.

According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!

Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.



A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.



This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.



Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True

That reminds me of those stilling looking for Noah's arc. It was built of wood. if it was in fact a reality. Wood will eventually rot away. Once while traveling the south shore of Nova Scotia I saw a mirage under the clouds. It was a unique experience but I knew it was illusary. Oops a T Rex just walked by on a cloud.

Ape-Men? 2



Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax, yet Piltdown “man was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

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



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

The only remains of Nebraska “man turned out to be a pig’s tooth (h).





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

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

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

At least eleven people have been accused of being the perpetrator of the famous Piltdown hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

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

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

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

g. Hammond, p. 43.

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

h . “A single small water-worn tooth, 10.5 mm by 11 mm in crown diameter, signalizes the arrival of a member of the family of anthropoid Primates in North America in Middle Pliocene time. Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 8, 15 August 1922, p. 245.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

That is a great load of BS

Ted;1515499 wrote: That is a great load of BS


In what way?

The whole creationist theology is simply an ignorance of man by scientific wannabees. To say there is no evidence of evolution is to walk blindly and not use one's brain. Denying the obvious.

Ted;1515540 wrote: The whole creationist theology is simply an ignorance of man by scientific wannabees. To say there is no evidence of evolution is to walk blindly and not use one's brain. Denying the obvious.


Where is evidence that evolution is obvious?

Pahu I'm not going to do your research for you. If you really want to know start looking. But hey, I don't want to confuse you with the facts.

Ted;1515543 wrote: Pahu I'm not going to do your research for you. If you really want to know start looking. But hey, I don't want to confuse you with the facts.


Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?

"Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them" (Ecclesiasties 12:1).

Humans don't seem very satisfied. There is always something else they feel they need. Where are they trying to get to? On the other hand, most apes are quite content. If I were to apply some home-spun logic to the theory of evolution, then I would logically have to believe that apes evolved from man.

If evolution means that a species changes to improve itself, it seems more logical that humans would grow hair to keep warm, reduce their diet to the most nutritious foods, eliminate high mortgages by adapting to the outdoors, and do away with money, complex governments, saying what you don't mean, war, stress, traffic congestion, and genocide (which occurs when you let other members of your species needlessly starve). Apes have accomplished all this.

Apes, by evolving from man, have "created" a more workable and more sane life-style. If the ultimate aim in a more advanced society is for peace and equity, then those who evolved into the ape species have certainly surpassed their forbears of the human species.

Pass me a banana. I want to be an ape.

Real Science Is Not Arbitrary

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

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

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

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

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

[continue]

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?

[continued]

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

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

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

[continue]

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?

[continued]

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

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

[continue]

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?

[continued]

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

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

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

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

More Questions Than Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Ted;1515543 wrote: Pahu I'm not going to do your research for you. If you really want to know start looking. But hey, I don't want to confuse you with the facts.


That fact that he is talking about a completely different "Evolution" than what most scientists define makes the discussion with him a waste of time and effort.

But still he never has actually offered any science to even disprove his own brand of Evolution.

LarsMac;1515548 wrote: That fact that he is talking about a completely different "Evolution" than what most scientists define makes the discussion with him a waste of time and effort.

But still he never has actually offered any science to even disprove his own brand of Evolution.


Sure I have but you choose to ignore it to preserve your erroneous preconceptions. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Sea Worm Is 'Man's Ancestor'?

On July 7, BBC News reported the rare discovery of a fossilized sea worm, classified as a hemichordate, a sophisticated invertebrate. Evolutionists are excited because this find supposedly provides insight into early evolution. And some evolutionists even see this worm—called Oesia—as a half-billion-year-old ancestor of man.1

Hemichordates—the acorn worms inhabiting ocean sediments today—are anything but simple. They are designed with a net-like nerve plexus containing giant nerve cells, pharyngeal gill slits, glomerulus, longitudinal and circular muscle, and unique embryonic development.

But what do scientists know for sure regarding this new supposedly ancient fossil? Clearly, like its modern version, it's quite a complex creature. The article states Oesia "had U-shaped gills running down most of the length of its body, to enable filter feeding." The fossil showed the sea worm lived inside a sophisticated tube-like structure that served as a protective house. But to say this worm is our ancestor is a wholly unwarranted extrapolation.

Contrary to what the BBC article states, this half-billion-year-old fossil does not give scientists any "new insights into how early creatures evolved." It's merely a sea-worm fossil much like sea worms alive today. Indeed, in 2013 three evolutionists said, "Hemichordate [evolution] has long remained problematic."2 British paleontologist Michael Benton stated, "The [evolutionary history] of hemichordates is actively debated."3 and six evolutionists said, "Hemichordate [evolutionary history] has long been puzzling."4

The amount of extrapolation needed to jump from sea worm to human is absolutely incredible. Evolutionists are simply speculating from something known to something unknown using conjecture and lots of imagination, rather than relying on an empirical process.

The fact that no undisputed transitional fossils exist doesn't seem to thwart evolutionary extrapolation nor wild claims, like we see in this story, of an ancestral connection between sea worms and humans. There must be a better scientific explanation.

Creation scientists view this Oesia fossil as an ocean bottom-dwelling sea worm buried suddenly during the first stage of the Genesis Flood.

Sea Worm Is 'Man's Ancestor' | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1515549 wrote: Sure I have but you choose to ignore it to preserve your erroneous preconceptions.


After all this time, you have no idea what sort of preconceptions, ereoneous, or otherwise that I may have.

I am simply waiting for you to produce some science.



Pahu;1515549 wrote: Creation scientists...


Oxymoron

LarsMac;1515556 wrote: After all this time, you have no idea what sort of preconceptions, ereoneous, or otherwise that I may have.

I am simply waiting for you to produce some science.

Oxymoron


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




Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday

If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the past and an opportunity to test these Bible-based expectations.

Joseph Parker, a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, specializes in this type of ant beetle, called Protoclaviger. He told the AMNH, "Protoclaviger is a truly transitional fossil."1 He and AMNH curator David Grimaldi coauthored a paper describing the find in Current Biology, where they wrote, "Protoclaviger captures a transitional stage in the evolutionary development of this novel body plan, most evident in its still-distinct abdominal tergites."2

Tergites are the segments of an insect's body, and the several hundred modern species of Protoclaviger do not have them. Instead, modern varieties have smooth, solid bodies. Is that all it takes to make a bona fide evolutionary transition? After all, the genetic basis for this kind of difference may be quite small, and the basic body form of this beetle looks the same as a modern variety.3 The fossil form is so similar to today's ant-loving beetles, classified in the family Clavigeritae, that it was easy to identify.

Entomologists are still unravelling the elaborate tactics these beetles use to live inside ant colonies, where they somehow convince worker ants to feed them directly, but the AMNH press release described a few of the known tactics. Ant-loving beetles actually have specialized mouth parts designed to receive liquid food from worker ants. They have special glands that secrete "oily secretions" all over their bodies.1 Tufts of hair-like projections called trichomes wick secretions outward, and ants in the colony constantly sample these secretion-soaked trichomes. Two of these trichomes stand out, like backward-pointing horns, with just the right size to fit ant mouths.

The fossil beetle has these same trichomes, too. The AMNH admitted that "its body is very similar to modern Clavigeritae beetles," but then noted that Protoclaviger still has tergites on its abdomen and so it must be a transitional form.4

But transitional forms are supposed to have clear transitional features, like an otherwise ant-beetle body but without its trichomes, which had not yet evolved. What's transitional about sectioned beetle abdomens versus smooth ones? Instead, both the modern and fossilized versions of this beetle share the shapes, size, and unique features befitting its life in an ant colony.

This fossil, easily recognized as an ant-loving beetle, has everything it needed to live among ancient ants. Protoclaviger is a great example of a well-designed body one would expect from animals that God created, and it also exemplifies fossils that look too similar to known living kinds to illustrate evolutionary transitions.

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday | The Institute for Creation Research

Put quite simply Creationists deny the existence of Evolution without even understanding what Evolution actually is. This is borne out by the old claim "If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys". Evolution doesn't work by B replacing A, which in turn is replaced by C, etc. Evolution comes about by diversification. A remains as A, but once in a while you get something that is slightly different - not by much, but different nonetheless. Even Creationists accept this much. They make up the term "Microevolution" to describe it (a word which, incidentally, only appears in Creationist Apologeticism). The modified version continues to live alongside the original model, until another deviation occurs which, in turn, continues to devolop alongside the other 2, etc. The question is, though, at which point of these minute changes can one accept that this is an entirely different species? Just what is it that determines one species from another? Is it the number of Chromosomes? If so, would you still consider a person with Down Syndrome to be human, as they have an extra pair of chromsomes?

Constantly pasting from a single book which is years out of date by a debunked wannabe, with absolutely no other independent research from other quantifying sources merely reinforces the fact that you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about. I guess you only have 2 books in your posession. Brown & the Bible - and I'm not even too convinced about the latter.