Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evidences for evolution
- Thread starter Ray K
- Start date
Upvote
0
due to lack of time.. i only answered in respond to evidence 1(according to ur post)
The fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. The fossil remains of living plants and animals are found in great numbers in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust. These have been organised into a standard "geological column" representing the various supposed geological ages of the past. In this standard column, simple unspecialized forms of life are found in the lower strata on the surface more complex animals. This is the basis of what evolutionist claim proves evolution.
Problem 1) Of the Billions of fossils found there are no fossils of true evolutionary transitional forms. Everyone of the great phyla, orders, class, and family as well as most genera and species appear suddenly in the fossil records, with no preliminary or transitional forms leading up to them. It is for this reason that some evolutionists now believe in "punctuated equilibrium" as an explanation for the sudden gap. The "punctuated equilibrium" theory however, is against all mathematical odds. No transitional form has been found.
Problem 2) All genera and the higher catergories are the same as they 1st appear in the fossil records. Even more would be found if not for the practice of paleontologist have of giving new names to fossilized species regardless of how closely they resemble modern day species. An example would be the very protozoa that life was "supposed" to evolved from.
Problem 3) All mammals - elephants, tiger, wolves, bears, beavers, etc as well as reptiles(giant ant, giant dragonflies, etc), fishes, amphibians, birds have evidently degenerated rather then get higher and more complex. It seems that it goes against the theory of evolution that states an upward, more complex selection of species.
Problem 4) Prediction: no fossils of a species will be found in rocks preceding its ancestors.
Exactly! However, many fossils have been found in rocks preceding its ancestors. Human bones have been found in older and lower stratas that their "supposed" transitional forms. "120 millions old" bones.. etc. The porblem.. it seems... is with the asumption that the stratas formed over millions of years. To prove that the geological column did not form over millions of years but by rapid burial, erosion and liquefaction; it is a known fact that there is hardly anywhere in the world where a full scale geological column can be found. Thousands of fossils show animals that were buried and fossiled before they can even decay. Even fished. Some in the process of digesting live food others in the process of swallowing their prey. These show rapid burial probably caused by a massive flood. There are poly-strata fossils e.g. tree fossils that extend vertical through many stratas before decaying some even upside down. This prove that rapid burial, erosion caused the stratas to form up. The seperation of the strata are simliar to what is seen in some water-saturated earthquake area the soil seperates itself into layers. You can refer to the book In the beginning. By walt brown. For more evidences, pictures, and sources on this. You will also find the "hydroplate theory" in that book. It is by far the most scientifically proven theory to date.... with many of its prediction coming true. The online version is www.creationscience.com
an excellent book to buy.
Problem 5) evolution goes against the law of entropy
There are many other evidence which I am unable to discuss here due to lack of time. (its 11.40pm here) As I seldom visit the forum I would appreciate if all further discussions on this topic be sent by email instead. Thanks. My email is joeltayzhiming@yahoo.com.sg
Other good resources on the web are
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Interesting tract.
http://www.icr.org/
Scientific and technical papers done by various scientists are also on sale here(e.g. technical scientic report on the latest rate isotope research which shows evidence of a young earth). Online creation courses are also available.
http://www.drdino.com/
Dr. Hovind Offering US$250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/
One of the best sites on the net for information on Creation vs Evolution.
http://www.carm.org/
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. Learn about it, different approaches, and how you can get better at it. Very resourceful page.
http://www11.ewebcity.com/landjuice/biblenscience.htm
Science that is found in the bible. Good site.
http://www.creationism.org/
An excellent overview of creationism's validity.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm
An astounding amount of scientific evidence disproving
evolutionary theory has been uncovered. Here is part of that evidence.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.org/
Intelligent design
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/CE.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Ken Ham and his excellent Creation ex nihilio magazine.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/
Jesus, Dinosaurs and more Much information about origins and the Bible.
The fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. The fossil remains of living plants and animals are found in great numbers in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust. These have been organised into a standard "geological column" representing the various supposed geological ages of the past. In this standard column, simple unspecialized forms of life are found in the lower strata on the surface more complex animals. This is the basis of what evolutionist claim proves evolution.
Problem 1) Of the Billions of fossils found there are no fossils of true evolutionary transitional forms. Everyone of the great phyla, orders, class, and family as well as most genera and species appear suddenly in the fossil records, with no preliminary or transitional forms leading up to them. It is for this reason that some evolutionists now believe in "punctuated equilibrium" as an explanation for the sudden gap. The "punctuated equilibrium" theory however, is against all mathematical odds. No transitional form has been found.
Problem 2) All genera and the higher catergories are the same as they 1st appear in the fossil records. Even more would be found if not for the practice of paleontologist have of giving new names to fossilized species regardless of how closely they resemble modern day species. An example would be the very protozoa that life was "supposed" to evolved from.
Problem 3) All mammals - elephants, tiger, wolves, bears, beavers, etc as well as reptiles(giant ant, giant dragonflies, etc), fishes, amphibians, birds have evidently degenerated rather then get higher and more complex. It seems that it goes against the theory of evolution that states an upward, more complex selection of species.
Problem 4) Prediction: no fossils of a species will be found in rocks preceding its ancestors.
Exactly! However, many fossils have been found in rocks preceding its ancestors. Human bones have been found in older and lower stratas that their "supposed" transitional forms. "120 millions old" bones.. etc. The porblem.. it seems... is with the asumption that the stratas formed over millions of years. To prove that the geological column did not form over millions of years but by rapid burial, erosion and liquefaction; it is a known fact that there is hardly anywhere in the world where a full scale geological column can be found. Thousands of fossils show animals that were buried and fossiled before they can even decay. Even fished. Some in the process of digesting live food others in the process of swallowing their prey. These show rapid burial probably caused by a massive flood. There are poly-strata fossils e.g. tree fossils that extend vertical through many stratas before decaying some even upside down. This prove that rapid burial, erosion caused the stratas to form up. The seperation of the strata are simliar to what is seen in some water-saturated earthquake area the soil seperates itself into layers. You can refer to the book In the beginning. By walt brown. For more evidences, pictures, and sources on this. You will also find the "hydroplate theory" in that book. It is by far the most scientifically proven theory to date.... with many of its prediction coming true. The online version is www.creationscience.com
an excellent book to buy.
Problem 5) evolution goes against the law of entropy
There are many other evidence which I am unable to discuss here due to lack of time. (its 11.40pm here) As I seldom visit the forum I would appreciate if all further discussions on this topic be sent by email instead. Thanks. My email is joeltayzhiming@yahoo.com.sg
Other good resources on the web are
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Interesting tract.
http://www.icr.org/
Scientific and technical papers done by various scientists are also on sale here(e.g. technical scientic report on the latest rate isotope research which shows evidence of a young earth). Online creation courses are also available.
http://www.drdino.com/
Dr. Hovind Offering US$250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/
One of the best sites on the net for information on Creation vs Evolution.
http://www.carm.org/
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. Learn about it, different approaches, and how you can get better at it. Very resourceful page.
http://www11.ewebcity.com/landjuice/biblenscience.htm
Science that is found in the bible. Good site.
http://www.creationism.org/
An excellent overview of creationism's validity.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm
An astounding amount of scientific evidence disproving
evolutionary theory has been uncovered. Here is part of that evidence.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.org/
Intelligent design
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/CE.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Ken Ham and his excellent Creation ex nihilio magazine.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/
Jesus, Dinosaurs and more Much information about origins and the Bible.
Upvote
0
Similarities are the result of the physical necessity of a wing to be shaped to produce lift. You can't make a wing without making a wing. So too with chromosomes. You can't make a living thing (as we know it) without DNA, and obviously there are going to be fundamental similarities there.
Upvote
0
Exactly how is that? Can you quote some kind of equations showing that PE is mathematically impossible? If you make such a statement, you should be prepared to back it up. As to transitionals, numerous examples have been given. They are usually dismissed with a handwave by creationists. Perhaps first we need to know what is your definition of "transitional fossil." Then tell us what you would accept as a transitional. Otherwise, we are chasing you all over the biological map with examples that you can run away from. Perhaps you could tell us whethere archeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur while you are at it.
So, you are saying that triolobites did not change from the Cambrian to the Devonian? Are you saying that fish did not change from the first agnathans to the coeolacanth?
Can you document this? Are we also degenerating? If so when will we become extinct?
It may seem so to creationists. Can you show us where evolution says this? Are you saying that there are no protozoa left on earth? It seems to me that we would have noticed this.
Can you document this? There have been numerous creationist claims that have been refuted and I don't really want to go over them all again.
As to the rest of it, well, we have seen these shotgun blasts all to frequently. If you want to make a point, I suggest that you make it and then defend it. That way we can actually have a discussion. The alternative might be to play dueling lists of websites, which is also possible but not very satisfying. Unfortunately, I am afraid it appears that you do not really understand these arguments but are simply parroting them. That's not much of a basis for a discussion.
Upvote
0
I don't have much time right now, and I haven't read any of the posts here since last night.
But, before I go to anthropology class, I thought I'd ask something of the believers in creationism here.
How do you explain the other hominid species discovered?
Autralopithecines, Homo erectus, H. neandertalensis etc.?
Please avoid pointing out the few cases where neandertal bones turned out to be cro-magnon, and focus on the hundreds of other specimines. Also, if possible, could you address specimen WT 15000 from Nariokotome, Kenya, the most complete H. erectus ever found. It is clearly not human, yet close enough that some consider it a transitional form.
But, before I go to anthropology class, I thought I'd ask something of the believers in creationism here.
How do you explain the other hominid species discovered?
Autralopithecines, Homo erectus, H. neandertalensis etc.?
Please avoid pointing out the few cases where neandertal bones turned out to be cro-magnon, and focus on the hundreds of other specimines. Also, if possible, could you address specimen WT 15000 from Nariokotome, Kenya, the most complete H. erectus ever found. It is clearly not human, yet close enough that some consider it a transitional form.
Upvote
0
Christians burned millions of pagan books and drove the Greek scholars to study in Arab countries. There's really no disputing that.
Are you seriously suggesting that pre-Renaissance Christianity was responsible for spreading Greek knowledge throughout the world? Seriously? If so, I'd like to see your references for this.
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
"But it's success rate is orders of magnitude better than faith. "
That's my point, I guess if you read my comments in context instead of ripping them out of it, you would have gotten that. Science isn't right all the time. Its not even right half of the time. Evolution is definatly one of the times science is wrong, but most evolutionists refuse to let it go.
"After the fall of Rome, there was no scientific study in Europe until the Renaissance. The Christians were too busy burning books and unbelievers to try and figure out how the world worked. "
*sigh* unfortuanly yes, christianity has done such things, but to point fingers and say blanket statements like this show me you're not a scientist at all. Science was going on long before this and long after thus, and yes, even during this. Its not christanity's fault it slowed, though we do share the blame with the rest of humanity for being okay with the status quo of the time.
"There are too many rationalists in the world to burn now, so you are just going to have to join the party or fall behind while you wallow in irrationalism. hahaha."
Ray, I'm in the party, you're the one back there in the back wallowing with the other evolutionists
That's my point, I guess if you read my comments in context instead of ripping them out of it, you would have gotten that. Science isn't right all the time. Its not even right half of the time. Evolution is definatly one of the times science is wrong, but most evolutionists refuse to let it go.
"After the fall of Rome, there was no scientific study in Europe until the Renaissance. The Christians were too busy burning books and unbelievers to try and figure out how the world worked. "
*sigh* unfortuanly yes, christianity has done such things, but to point fingers and say blanket statements like this show me you're not a scientist at all. Science was going on long before this and long after thus, and yes, even during this. Its not christanity's fault it slowed, though we do share the blame with the rest of humanity for being okay with the status quo of the time.
"There are too many rationalists in the world to burn now, so you are just going to have to join the party or fall behind while you wallow in irrationalism. hahaha."
Ray, I'm in the party, you're the one back there in the back wallowing with the other evolutionists
Upvote
0
I would like to know what you consider examples of science in the post-Roman, pre-Renaissance Europe. I'm very curious.
Unfortunately, I'm not going along with the "we do share the blame with therest of humanity" line.
The propensity for Christians to burn pagan works is much higher than for other faiths. That religion is single-handedly responsible for the destruction of more accumulated scientific knowledge than any other.
Here's a fun link for some relevant Christian history:
http://ethnikoi.org/persecutions.html
Upvote
0
I'll only answer the 1st 2 parts of your question due to lack of time. I've included some of the sources just in case you want to rectify them. In future
. Pls email all future replys to joeltayzhiming@yahoo.com.sg . I seldom visit this forum. Cheers!Exactly how is that?
Can you quote some kind of equations showing that PE is mathematically impossible? If you make such a statement, you should be prepared to back it up. As to transitionals, numerous examples have been given. They are usually dismissed with a handwave by creationists. Perhaps first we need to know what is your definition of "transitional fossil." Then tell us what you would accept as a transitional. Otherwise, we are chasing you all over the biological map with examples that you can run away from. Perhaps you could tell us whethere archeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur while you are at it.
Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so complex that claims concerning their evolution are questionable. Furthermore, such claims lack experimental support.(Behe,p.186)
There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organsespecially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections(Denton,pp.330-331), more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.
I believe that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur. If dinosaurs (or as some evolutionists assert, reptiles) evolved into birds, thousands of types of animals should have been more birdlike than dinosaurs and yet more dinosaurlike than birds. Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds. If so, it is the only such transitional form. Furthermore, of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in almost all biology textbooks. Some say the six Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory.
Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries(Dr, Lee Spetner first made this allegation in a meeting of scientist held in Jerusalem in July 1980. Spetner studied the British Museum Specimen in June 1978 and explained the discrepancies to Dr. Alan Charig, the museum's Chief Curator of Fossil Amphibians,reptiles and birds. For more complete description and photographs of this evidence, see Fred Hoyle and N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A case of fossil forgery"). Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.
If Archaeopteryx did not have a few perfectly formed, modern feathers, clearly visible on only two of the six known specimens, Archaeopteryx would be considered Compsognathus.
In John H. Ostrom's," 'The Origin of Birds', Annunal Review of Earth and Plantery Sciences Vol. 3, 1975,p.61.", He says, " these specimens [of Archaeopteryx] are not particularly like modern birds at all. If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin Specimens, They would never have been identified as birds. Instead, they would unquestionably have been labeled as coelurosian dinosaurs[such as Compsognathus]. Notice that the last 3 specimens to be recognised[as Archaeopteryx] were all misidentified at 1st, and the Eichstatt specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus"
The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are certainly not suitable for flight, because no specimen shows a sternum (breast bone) which all birds, and even bats, must have to anchor their large flight muscles. Finally, Archaeopteryx should not be classified as a bird
(source: R.A. Thulborn," The Avian relationships of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds",Zoological Journal of Linneab Society, Vol.82, 1984,p.119.) The two fossils with feathers were found and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwins theory and book, The Origin of Species (1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts apparently thought the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen.
Evidence of a forgery includes instances where the supposedly mating faces of the fossil (the main slab and counterslab) do not mate. The feather impressions are primarily on the main slab, while the counterslab in several places has raised areas that have no corresponding indentation on the main slab. These raised areas, nicknamed chewing gum blobs, are made of the same fine-grained material that is found only under the feather impressions. The rest of the fossil is composed of a coarse-grained limestone.
(photos can be found in N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird, p.241)
Also found are "Chewing Gum Blob. These raised spots on the fossils have the appearance of pieces of chewing gum. They have no corresponding indentation on the mating face of the fossil. Small drops of wet cement fell on the surface and were never detected or cleaned off by the forger. (photos can be found in N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird, p.241)
Some might claim that Archaeopteryx has a wishbone, or furculaa unique feature of birds. It would be more accurate to say that only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula. It is a strange furcula, relatively the largest known in any bird.(The beginning of birds: proceedings of the international Archaeopteryx conference of 1984) Furthermore, it is upside down, a point acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movementT. H. Huxley (Darwins so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated, "It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity."
Feather imprints show what has been called double strike impressions. Apparently, feather impressions were made twice in a slightly displaced position as the slab and counterslab were pressed together. Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the courser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this amorphous paste also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found.(N.Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle, "Archaeopteryx, the primodial bird?" Nature, Vol.324, 18/25 Dec 1986, p.622) Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.
Fossilized feathers are almost unknown, and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Furthermore, there has been no convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. One difficulty, which will be appreciated after reading about liquefaction, is the low density of bird carcasses. Another is that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, as explained on. Therefore, to be buried in limestone, the animal must lie on the sea floora rarity for a dead bird.
Significantly, two modern birds have recently been found in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx.("Fossil bird shake evolutionary Hypotheses", nature, Vol. 322,21 Aug 1986,p.677) Therefore, according to evolutionary dating methods, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds. True fossilized birds have been found that evolutionists believe lived shortly after Archaeopteryx.(Science, Vol.274, 15 Nov1996,pp.1164-1167.) This has forced some to conclude that the distinctly different Archaeopteryx was not ancestral to modern birds.( Science, Vol.274, 15 Nov1996,p.1083)
The media seldom retract evolutionist claims after they are shown to be false. National Geographic, which originally, and falsely, reported the discovery in China of a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds, has provided one refreshing exception. (Actually, the fossil was a composite of a birds body and a dinosaurs tail, faked for financial gain.) Details of this fiasco were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigative reporter at the request of National Geographics editor. The report was summarized as follows:
Its a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.(National Geographic, Vol. 198,No. 4, Oct 2000,pp. 128-131.)
Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.
Archaeopteryxs fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery.
Can you quote some kind of equations showing that PE is mathematically impossible? If you make such a statement, you should be prepared to back it up. As to transitionals, numerous examples have been given. They are usually dismissed with a handwave by creationists. Perhaps first we need to know what is your definition of "transitional fossil." Then tell us what you would accept as a transitional. Otherwise, we are chasing you all over the biological map with examples that you can run away from. Perhaps you could tell us whethere archeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur while you are at it.
Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so complex that claims concerning their evolution are questionable. Furthermore, such claims lack experimental support.(Behe,p.186)
There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organsespecially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections(Denton,pp.330-331), more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.
I believe that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur. If dinosaurs (or as some evolutionists assert, reptiles) evolved into birds, thousands of types of animals should have been more birdlike than dinosaurs and yet more dinosaurlike than birds. Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds. If so, it is the only such transitional form. Furthermore, of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in almost all biology textbooks. Some say the six Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory.
Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries(Dr, Lee Spetner first made this allegation in a meeting of scientist held in Jerusalem in July 1980. Spetner studied the British Museum Specimen in June 1978 and explained the discrepancies to Dr. Alan Charig, the museum's Chief Curator of Fossil Amphibians,reptiles and birds. For more complete description and photographs of this evidence, see Fred Hoyle and N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A case of fossil forgery"). Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.
If Archaeopteryx did not have a few perfectly formed, modern feathers, clearly visible on only two of the six known specimens, Archaeopteryx would be considered Compsognathus.
In John H. Ostrom's," 'The Origin of Birds', Annunal Review of Earth and Plantery Sciences Vol. 3, 1975,p.61.", He says, " these specimens [of Archaeopteryx] are not particularly like modern birds at all. If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin Specimens, They would never have been identified as birds. Instead, they would unquestionably have been labeled as coelurosian dinosaurs[such as Compsognathus]. Notice that the last 3 specimens to be recognised[as Archaeopteryx] were all misidentified at 1st, and the Eichstatt specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus"
The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are certainly not suitable for flight, because no specimen shows a sternum (breast bone) which all birds, and even bats, must have to anchor their large flight muscles. Finally, Archaeopteryx should not be classified as a bird
(source: R.A. Thulborn," The Avian relationships of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds",Zoological Journal of Linneab Society, Vol.82, 1984,p.119.) The two fossils with feathers were found and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwins theory and book, The Origin of Species (1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts apparently thought the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen.
Evidence of a forgery includes instances where the supposedly mating faces of the fossil (the main slab and counterslab) do not mate. The feather impressions are primarily on the main slab, while the counterslab in several places has raised areas that have no corresponding indentation on the main slab. These raised areas, nicknamed chewing gum blobs, are made of the same fine-grained material that is found only under the feather impressions. The rest of the fossil is composed of a coarse-grained limestone.
(photos can be found in N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird, p.241)
Also found are "Chewing Gum Blob. These raised spots on the fossils have the appearance of pieces of chewing gum. They have no corresponding indentation on the mating face of the fossil. Small drops of wet cement fell on the surface and were never detected or cleaned off by the forger. (photos can be found in N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird, p.241)
Some might claim that Archaeopteryx has a wishbone, or furculaa unique feature of birds. It would be more accurate to say that only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula. It is a strange furcula, relatively the largest known in any bird.(The beginning of birds: proceedings of the international Archaeopteryx conference of 1984) Furthermore, it is upside down, a point acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movementT. H. Huxley (Darwins so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated, "It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity."
Feather imprints show what has been called double strike impressions. Apparently, feather impressions were made twice in a slightly displaced position as the slab and counterslab were pressed together. Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the courser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this amorphous paste also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found.(N.Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle, "Archaeopteryx, the primodial bird?" Nature, Vol.324, 18/25 Dec 1986, p.622) Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.
Fossilized feathers are almost unknown, and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Furthermore, there has been no convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. One difficulty, which will be appreciated after reading about liquefaction, is the low density of bird carcasses. Another is that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, as explained on. Therefore, to be buried in limestone, the animal must lie on the sea floora rarity for a dead bird.
Significantly, two modern birds have recently been found in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx.("Fossil bird shake evolutionary Hypotheses", nature, Vol. 322,21 Aug 1986,p.677) Therefore, according to evolutionary dating methods, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds. True fossilized birds have been found that evolutionists believe lived shortly after Archaeopteryx.(Science, Vol.274, 15 Nov1996,pp.1164-1167.) This has forced some to conclude that the distinctly different Archaeopteryx was not ancestral to modern birds.( Science, Vol.274, 15 Nov1996,p.1083)
The media seldom retract evolutionist claims after they are shown to be false. National Geographic, which originally, and falsely, reported the discovery in China of a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds, has provided one refreshing exception. (Actually, the fossil was a composite of a birds body and a dinosaurs tail, faked for financial gain.) Details of this fiasco were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigative reporter at the request of National Geographics editor. The report was summarized as follows:
Its a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.(National Geographic, Vol. 198,No. 4, Oct 2000,pp. 128-131.)
Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.
Archaeopteryxs fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery.
Upvote
0
continue from previous post
So, you are saying that trilobites did not change from the Cambrian to the Devonian? Are you saying that fish did not change from the first agnathans to the coelacanth?
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersedworldwide. Few people realize that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. These layers contain representatives of all todays plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants and vertebrates (animals with backbones) Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. The fossil record does not support evolution.
Another type of eye belongs to some trilobites, which evolutionists claim are very early forms of life. These trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Trilobite eyes represent an all-time feat of function optimization. Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 2974. Shawver described trilobite eyes as having the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. Lisa J. Shawver, Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution, Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72. Gould admits that The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in lifes history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, February 1984, pp. 2223.
- Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite.
In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found trilobites and apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the heel. The 10-inch-long shoe print is at the left, with its rock mold to its right. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. The slab showed a footprint with the back of the heel being worn, just as most of our shoes wear today. The heel was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch deeper than the sole. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print. These trilobites existed at the same time as man.
As for the coelacanth,
It was thought to be extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth was first caught in 1938 deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Since then, rewards have been offered for coelacanths, so hundreds have been caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.(Ibid.,p.123.) How likely is it that two groups of coelacanths could survive so far apart for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanthsdespite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.(Coelacanths: The fish that time forgot,"National Geographic, Vol.173,June 1988,p.833.)(The Coelacanth" Scientific American, Vol.193, Dec 1955,p.37)("living fossils" New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,Ltd.,1991, p.70), etc.
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.(Millot,p.34)(Thomson,p.160)
Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, must have crawled out of a shallow sea, filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people.
Professor J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, who privately studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth Old Fourlegs, and wrote a book by that title in 1956. However, in 1987, a German team led by Hans Fricke filmed 6 coelacanths in their natural habitat. Were they crawling on all fours in a shallow sea? Did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.(Fricke,p.838)(Millot,p.39) In fact, they live 3401,200 feet below sea level and spend much of their time doing headstands, apparently looking for food.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above other types of fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, it was concluded that the upper organism must have evolved after the lower organism. These early geologists did not realize there were hydrodynamically sound reasons why, during the flood, organisms were sorted in that order (liquefaction)
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these index fossils. Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the layer of the index fossil. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil contentwhich, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. This reasoning is circular.(R.H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10,1954,p.168) Furthermore, it has produced many contradictory results, such as living coelacanths. I hope this answers your question.
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.( . Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. See Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts IVIII, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.) (Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary treesfossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups. Neil Shubin, Evolutionary Cut and Paste, Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.)
For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.( Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch? Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.)
Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmenia(Alexander Romashko, Tracking Dinosaurs, Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. (For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, ManA Contemporary of the Dinosaurs? Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 2829.) and in Arizona.( Paul O. Rosnau et al., Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona? Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 4148 and December 1989, pp. 7798.) (Jeremy Auldaney et al., More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133146 and back cover. )
Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.( Andrew Snelling, Fossil Bluff, Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8. )(Carol Armstrong, Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198199. )(Pat Shipman, Dumping on Science, Discover, December 1987, p. 64. )
Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.( Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes Book House, 1870). )( Edward J. Nolan, Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 8081. John Watson )(8302 Daleview Drive, Austin, Texas 78758) has done extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.)
Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.( A. C. Noé, A Paleozoic Angiosperm, The Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, MayJune 1923, pp. 344347.)
In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian(R. M. Stainforth, Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292294.) and Precambrian(George F. Howe et al., A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173182.)
rocksrocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years.( Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 9396, 100.)
Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.( Richard Monastersky, A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style, Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21.)
Petrified trees in Arizonas petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later.( Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.
Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved.( Dong Ren, Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins, Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 8588.) Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale
So, you are saying that trilobites did not change from the Cambrian to the Devonian? Are you saying that fish did not change from the first agnathans to the coelacanth?
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersedworldwide. Few people realize that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. These layers contain representatives of all todays plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants and vertebrates (animals with backbones) Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. The fossil record does not support evolution.
Another type of eye belongs to some trilobites, which evolutionists claim are very early forms of life. These trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Trilobite eyes represent an all-time feat of function optimization. Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 2974. Shawver described trilobite eyes as having the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. Lisa J. Shawver, Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution, Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72. Gould admits that The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in lifes history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, February 1984, pp. 2223.
- Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite.
In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found trilobites and apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the heel. The 10-inch-long shoe print is at the left, with its rock mold to its right. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. The slab showed a footprint with the back of the heel being worn, just as most of our shoes wear today. The heel was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch deeper than the sole. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print. These trilobites existed at the same time as man.
As for the coelacanth,
It was thought to be extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth was first caught in 1938 deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Since then, rewards have been offered for coelacanths, so hundreds have been caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.(Ibid.,p.123.) How likely is it that two groups of coelacanths could survive so far apart for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanthsdespite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.(Coelacanths: The fish that time forgot,"National Geographic, Vol.173,June 1988,p.833.)(The Coelacanth" Scientific American, Vol.193, Dec 1955,p.37)("living fossils" New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,Ltd.,1991, p.70), etc.
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.(Millot,p.34)(Thomson,p.160)
Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, must have crawled out of a shallow sea, filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people.
Professor J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, who privately studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth Old Fourlegs, and wrote a book by that title in 1956. However, in 1987, a German team led by Hans Fricke filmed 6 coelacanths in their natural habitat. Were they crawling on all fours in a shallow sea? Did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.(Fricke,p.838)(Millot,p.39) In fact, they live 3401,200 feet below sea level and spend much of their time doing headstands, apparently looking for food.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above other types of fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, it was concluded that the upper organism must have evolved after the lower organism. These early geologists did not realize there were hydrodynamically sound reasons why, during the flood, organisms were sorted in that order (liquefaction)
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these index fossils. Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the layer of the index fossil. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil contentwhich, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. This reasoning is circular.(R.H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10,1954,p.168) Furthermore, it has produced many contradictory results, such as living coelacanths. I hope this answers your question.
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.( . Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. See Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts IVIII, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.) (Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary treesfossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups. Neil Shubin, Evolutionary Cut and Paste, Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.)
For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.( Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch? Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.)
Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmenia(Alexander Romashko, Tracking Dinosaurs, Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. (For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, ManA Contemporary of the Dinosaurs? Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 2829.) and in Arizona.( Paul O. Rosnau et al., Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona? Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 4148 and December 1989, pp. 7798.) (Jeremy Auldaney et al., More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133146 and back cover. )
Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.( Andrew Snelling, Fossil Bluff, Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8. )(Carol Armstrong, Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198199. )(Pat Shipman, Dumping on Science, Discover, December 1987, p. 64. )
Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.( Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes Book House, 1870). )( Edward J. Nolan, Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 8081. John Watson )(8302 Daleview Drive, Austin, Texas 78758) has done extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.)
Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.( A. C. Noé, A Paleozoic Angiosperm, The Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, MayJune 1923, pp. 344347.)
In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian(R. M. Stainforth, Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292294.) and Precambrian(George F. Howe et al., A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173182.)
rocksrocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years.( Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 9396, 100.)
Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.( Richard Monastersky, A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style, Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21.)
Petrified trees in Arizonas petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later.( Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.
Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved.( Dong Ren, Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins, Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 8588.) Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale
Upvote
0
Those Arizona "human" tracks have three toes... with claws. They have since been determined to be eroded dinosaur tracks.
Amphibious life eats air and land life. Crocodiles lunge from the water to grab land dwelling mammals. Sharks eat things trying to swim across an estuary. Great Whites have been observed to swim up underneath floating marine birds and devour them.
If I were to walk across a rock or boulder long enough, my feet would eventually erode their shape into the rock's surface. Same holds true for horse hoofs... especially if the rock underneath them is a common route to a watering hole or other drinking place along the river.
The same can be said of creationists and their theories.
The infamous "150 feet of moon dust" idea, for example.
Upvote
0
So, it is mathematically impossible, but you do not have any math to show us this...
Wait! I thought you said there were NO transitional forms.
If, if, if. How about some facts?
Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries(Dr, Lee Spetner first made this allegation in a meeting of scientist held in Jerusalem in July 1980. Spetner studied the British Museum Specimen in June 1978 and explained the discrepancies to Dr. Alan Charig, the museum's Chief Curator of Fossil Amphibians,reptiles and birds. For more complete description and photographs of this evidence, see Fred Hoyle and N.Chandra Wickramasinghe's, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A case of fossil forgery"
. Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement. If Archaeopteryx did not have a few perfectly formed, modern feathers, clearly visible on only two of the six known specimens, Archaeopteryx would be considered Compsognathus. [/quote]
Nonsense the bone structure of archie is different from dinosaurs. And if this was discovered in 1980, why is archie still around as an example of a transitional? Sorry, but your story is not making sense.
Of course not! They're transitional! They are not exactly like dinosaurs either.
[/quote]If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin Specimens, They would never have been identified as birds. Instead, they would unquestionably have been labeled as coelurosian dinosaurs[such as Compsognathus]. Notice that the last 3 specimens to be recognised[as Archaeopteryx] were all misidentified at 1st, and the Eichstatt specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus"[/quote]
This is exactly what I would expect of a transitional: that it would be misidientified at first!
I thought you said that it wasn't a bird... At any rate, I would expect it to be different from birds... it is transitional...
As to the forgery of archeopteryx, I cannot address these issues. However, I have little confidence that this type of hoax could long survive, especially since other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered since.
Upvote
0
Well, how else would it appear? Half formed?
You conveniently omit discussiono of the Vendian fauna. Why is that?
Upvote
0
No. It was just something I stumbled across yesterday while looking for another article.
I think the book-burning and pagan-burning of early Christians is well-documented, though. If you are in denial of that, I can certainly find plenty of references for you.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
