Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Palaentology » Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution

Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution on Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:06 pm

Admin


Admin
Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1701-fossils-evidence-against-evolution

From a peer reviewed paper by Gene Hunt in 2007: 1
"Directional evolution is rarely observed within lineages traced through the fossil record. Only ≈5% of cases (13 of 251) are best fit by the directional evolution model (...)
Some previous paleontological studies have used a model of directional change in which evolutionary changes proceed at an absolutely constant rate in the same direction indefinitely (11). Although of heuristic value, most would agree that this model is not realistic over paleontological time scales. (...)
I have used these methods to analyze many fossil sequences, but even the most promising examples (e.g., refs. 21 and 22) do not support models of sustained directional change, although single interval punctuations are sometimes implied (unpublished data). Thus, even relaxing the assumption that evolutionary mode is uniform within lineages, we are still led to the conclusion that directional change is rarely observed over paleontologically significant time scales. (...)
Despite the commonness of stasis, there is little consensus about its cause or causes."

Charles Doolittle Walcott, a paleontologist and Secretary (1907-1927) of the Smithsonian, began research in the fossil-bearing Burgess Shale region in the Rocky Mountains, Canada, and unearthed one of the greatest finds in the history of paleontology: the first fossils of Cambrian creatures 530 million years old. These approximately 530-million-year-old fossils entirely eliminated the false reasoning of gradual evolution. Yet they were brought out from where they had been stored and presented to the world only after 70 years had gone by. Walcott, a committed Darwinist, had decided to conceal the fossils he had obtained rather than sharing his findings with his fellow scientists. The Burgess Shale fossils were brought to light only in 1985, when the museum archives were reexamined. The Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder comments: “Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The [Cambrian] explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported” (Schroeder, 2000).


"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. It has been suggested, for example, that all the Pre-Cambrian sediments were deposited on continental areas, and the absence of fossils in them is due to the fact that all the older animals were seadwellers. But that all these older sediments were continental is a theory which opposes, without proof, everything we know of deposition in later times. Again, it is suggested that the Pre-Cambrian seas were poor in calcium carbonate, necessary for the production of preservable skeletons; but this is not supported by geochemical evidence. Yet again, it is argued that even though conditions were amenable to the formation of fossilizable skeletal parts, the various phyla only began to use these possibilities at the dawn of the Cambrian. But it is, a priori, hard to believe that the varied types present in the early Cambrian would all have, so to speak, decided to put on armour simultaneously. And, once again, it has been argued that the whole evolution of multicellular animals took place with great rapidity in late Pre-Cambrian times, so that a relatively short gap in rock deposition would account for the absence of any record of their rise. Perhaps; but the known evolutionary rate in most groups from the Cambrian on is a relatively leisurely one, and it is hard to convince oneself that a sudden major burst of evolutionary advance would be so promptly followed by a marked 'slowdown'. All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Pre-Cambrian riddle."

Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20.
"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..."

Hoyle, Sir Frederick [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107.
"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3.
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."


Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289.
"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.


Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Major Features of Evolution," [1953], Columbia University Press: New York, 1955, Second Printing, p.360.
"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it."

Ridley, Mark [zoologist, Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832.
STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, "...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.", Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990


PRESTON CLOUD & MARTIN F. GLAESSNER, 
"Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." SCIENCE, Aug.27, 1982


RICHARD MONASTERSKY
 Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared....This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures....'This is Genesis material,' gushed one researcher....demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertebrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93

RICHARD DAWKINS
Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists....the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, 1986, p229-230

H.S. LADD, UCLA
"Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Precambrian record cannot properly he described as a link for it is in reality, about ninetenths of the chain of life: the first ninetenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.ll, p.7

PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard,
"It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoa's, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23

As for the myth that is "Horse evolution", Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, stated that, where

"evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition: "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." It is a well known fact that most of those museum displays, once highly touted as definitive proof of equine evolution, are now neatly packed away in the basements of those museums, fully rejected by modern paleontological discoveries!


1) http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18404.full



Last edited by Admin on Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:58 am; edited 6 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Re: Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution on Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:07 pm

Admin


Admin
Most people have been led to believe that the fossil record is the most compelling evidence for universal common descent, i.e. Darwinism.

For over one hundred years, Darwinian paleontologists have lined-up similar looking fossils in attempts to create the illusion that lower forms of life evolved into higher forms of life (common descent). But, when geneticists acquired the ability to compare genetic sequences of similar looking organisms, it was clear that creating lineages and family trees (phylogeny) based on similar features (homology) is “wrong and misleading”:

Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said:
 “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” …

Dr Rose said:
 “The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What’s less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.””

Telegraph UK Online, “Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists”, January 22, 2009,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
“Today’s computational tools use sequence similarity, assuming that genes with similar sequences indicate common ancestry … But Durand’s tests showed that this assumption often does not hold. Her team found disturbing results when they compared sequence similarity to their Neighborhood Correlation method in evaluating the 20 gene families with established histories. The sequence similarity method actually yielded false ancestral associations and missed true ancestral relationships.”

Carnegie Mellon University,
“New Tool To Understand Evolution Of Multi-Domain Genes Developed”, May 18, 2008, ScienceDaily website.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515205640.htm

What is a transitional or intermediate fossil?mHere is the typical evolutionary definition:
“What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

So, where do they draw the line when connecting all the millions of fossils to each other? Is one shared feature enough? How about two, or three, or four, five, six? Does it also pertain to internal organs? The only criteria used is seeing a gap in the record and attempting to fill it with some sort of fossil. It’s as simple (and pathetic) as that. But the real question of fossil evidence remains to be answered:

Does the fossil record provide ANY evidence for evolution creating new features to appear in existing organisms?

Refer to the first two diagrams from “Fins to Limbs”:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/opportunity/tetrapodsAnswer.html

The author lines up a fanciful progression of fossils and adds new bones as needed, attributing the evolution of them to nothing other than “refinements and variations of the adaptations and features.”
Notice how new bones instantly appear in the drawings and how the author conveniently forgets to mention how the necessary muscles, tendons, nerves, etc. also evolve simultaneously with them.

Do you see any fossils in the diagrams that have a partial bone mass displaying an initial development of a humerus, mesomeres, radius, ulna, or ulnar? Why not?

What causes new features to instantly appear and be fully assembled, fully formed, and immediately functional?
Go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

Why are there NO examples of any partially formed feature found in an existing population or in the fossil record?

“It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_05
“In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21
BELOW ARE EVEN MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE FOSSIL RECORD
Evolution predicts that life began as simple organisms, but complexity has been rule, not exception, in the earliest known fossils:

“Our earliest animal ancestors, it appears, were sponges — multicellular animals that feed by passing seawater though a complex system of internal channels. And these earliest sponges may predate the Ediacarian period by as much as 80 million years, this new evidence shows …
And, after painstaking chemical analysis, they found sponge-derived steroids in abundance — and with them, strong new evidence that sponges, among the simplest forms of multicellular life, were indeed the first such organisms on Earth.”
http://www.physorg.com/news152976776.html

“Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472371

“Until now, the dominant paradigm in the field of paleobiology has been that the earliest multicellular animals were simple, and that strategies organisms use today to survive, reproduce and grow in numbers have arisen over time due to several factors …
‘How Funisia appears in the fossils clearly shows that ecosystems were complex very early in the history of animals on Earth – ‘”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320150025.htm

Evolution predicts that fossils can be accurately dated using radiocarbon dating techniques. But, recent research shows fundamental problems with these techniques.

“The principle of radiocarbon dating is that plants and animals absorb trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere while they are alive but stop doing so when they die. The carbon-14 decays from archaeological and geological samples so the amount left in the sample gives an indication of how old the sample is.
As the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is not constant, but varies with the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, solar activity and ocean radiocarbon ages must be corrected with a calibration curve.”
Centre at Queen’s University Belfast, “Scientists produce archaeological ‘time machine’”, February 11, 2010, Physorg website.
http://www.physorg.com/news185112176.html

“The precise timing of the origin of life on Earth and the changes in life during the past 4.5 billion years has been a subject of great controversy for the past century. The principal indicator of the amount of organic carbon produced by biological activity traditionally used is the ratio of the less abundant isotope of carbon, 13C, to the more abundant isotope, 12C. It appears that records related to carbonate platforms which are often used throughout the early history of the Earth are not good recorders of the 13C/12C ratio in the open oceans. Hence, the work presented suggests that assumptions made previously about changes in the 13C/12C ratios of carbonate sediments in the geological record are incorrect.”
http://www.physorg.com/news140266859.html

Evolution predicts that the earth is old and was formed by a gradual layering of different types of sediment. But, the layers lack uniformity when comparisons are made throughout the earth, and it is now known that the technique of dating fossils by their position within geological layers (strata) in NOT supported by empirical evidence:

“Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata … Sometimes this method doesn’t work, either because the layers weren’t deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education website, “Chronology” page.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_10

“A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe.”

David, M. Raup, Paleontologist, University of Chicago, quoted while curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.
“I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception…. We need to shed those lingering subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking.”

(Emeritus) Professor Robert Dott, Sedimentary Geology, UW Madison, “The Rule” Presidential Address To Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists, Geotimes, Nov. 1982, p.16 Dott is a co-author of a leading textbook of earth history, Evolution of the Earth (McGraw-Hill), which is now in its 7th edition. In 1995, he received the Geological Society of America’s History of Geology Division Award.


If evolution is true, why is it that evolutionists focus on the fossil record? Shouldn’t we be able to observe it occurring in real time?

“It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_05

This is most incriminating evidence against all the tenets of evolution!

http://whoisyourcreator.com/topics/fossil-evidence/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution on Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:43 pm

Admin


Admin

Why is the Fossil Record Important?



We’ve all heard the evolution story, and how the fossil record proves it.According to modern science textbooks, life with intact DNA spontaneously arose from non-life long ago in a chemical ‘prebiotic soup’, and then gradually evolved into higher life forms, with living cells becoming plants, worms, clams, insects, reptiles, fish, birds, apes and man according to random chance and ‘natural selection’.
Charles Darwin popularized the evolution idea, and believed evidence for evolution would be shown in the fossil record by skeletal remains of ancient creatures. There were not nearly as many fossils found in Darwin’s day as we have today, but Darwin and other evolutionists fully expected that evolution would be completely substantiated by the fossil record as more fossils were found, revealing how species transitioned from one life form to another.
The fossil record is widely taught as the primary evidence for evolution in our educational system, complete with artist ideas that show progress of molecules to man. But does the fossil record actually reveal evolution?

What are Fossils, and How are Fossils Made?

Fossils are remains of creatures preserved in sedimentary rock, which is only laid down by water. They have been collected at almost all elevations throughout the Earth, including very high mountains and low valleys. Fossils are often randomly scattered vertically, and not arranged according to any discernible pattern from simple to complex as shown in most textbooks.
Fossils were once living creatures that were either alive or very recently died when they were sealed rapidly to preserve them. Fossils do not form if creatures are left exposed, because bones and tissue quickly decay and disintegrate. Millions of soft-bodied fossils have been found that would decay very rapidly, including even jellyfish (which are mostly water), so they must have beencompletely sealed in less than a day.
Until recently, mainstream geology taught that most of Earth history consisted of mild, uniform changes over long periods of time. Since recent evidence indicates many major catastrophes, however, professional geologists now acknowledge a largely catastrophic, not gradual uniformitarian model for Earth’s history.

What Does the Fossil Record Actually Reveal?

As a result of much work by archeologists, over 100 billion fossils have been found, and we now have over 100 million fossils in our museums. Among all these billions, however, not a single clear ‘transitional form’ that Darwin and other evolutionists fully expected to prove evolution was ever found.Evolutionists expected that there would be abundant fossils to reveal gradual transitions among species as they evolved, but only fossils of fully functioning life forms were found, showing creatures fit for specific purposes, and fossils of transitions among these life forms were never discovered.
Darwin recognized large gaps in the fossil record, but fully expected abundant evidence for those gaps would be found as more fossils were discovered in the future. Moreover, Darwin considered that if such intermediate fossils were not found, then his theory would have been proven false. However, now that our museums contain so many millions of fossils, credible transitional forms between species are still woefully lacking, despite many vain and transitory attempts to claim them. If he were alive today, Darwin apparently would have considered his theory of evolution unsubstantiated and therefore a failure.

Professional Evolutionists Say the Fossil Record Does Not Show Evolution

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.”
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.


In a 1977 paper titled The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Gould stated:

“The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change … All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Stephen Jay Gould, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History 86, 1977, p.22.


Gould further wrote:

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
Stephen Jay Gould, Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?, Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.


Finally, Gould said:

“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.”
Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1982, pp. 181-182.


The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:

“Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998, pp. 101–102 (quoting Patterson’s 1979 letter).


In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following:

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?”
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 14.


David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:

“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them …”
David B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution Vol. 28 (1974), p. 466


Paleobiology Professor Ronald R. West, Ph.D. said:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
Ronald R. West, Ph.D. Paleoecology and Geology (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism, Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.


David Raup, who was curator of geology at the museum holding the world’s largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:

“[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would … Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. … [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”
David M. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979), pp. 22-23, 24-25.


Even the famous ‘Lucy’ is no longer considered a missing link, but simply an ape. According to anthropologist Yoel Rak of Tel Aviv University:

“Lucy’s kind occupied only a side branch of human evolution. A. afarensis evolved into the relatively small-brained, large-jawed robust australopithecines but didn’t contribute to the evolution of modern people.”
Bower, B., Disinherited Ancestor: Lucy’s Kind May Occupy Evolutionary Side Branch, Science News Vol. 171, no. 15, April 14, 2007, p. 230.


The famous evolutionist Richard Leakey was quoted as saying:

“Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added thatLucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination made of plaster of Paris’, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.”
Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3.


John Reader, the author of Missing Links, says:

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. … but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution,preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of “Missing Links”), Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802.


Anthropologist Dr. Tim White admitted:

“A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib. … He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or ‘Piltdown Man,’ the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the ‘earliest Englishman’. The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.’”
Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199.


The meaning of above quotes by leading evolutionists is obvious. Our science textbooks that state evolution as fact based on the fossil record have lied to us, and continue to lie to students. Billions of fossils have been found, revealing only distinct, functional creatures and no transitional forms, so provide powerful evidence for creation of distinct species, and no evidence whatsoever for evolution.

No Fossil Evidence, No Problem?

Millions of transitional fossil forms were expected to be found by evolutionists, but they never were. If transitional forms ever existed then abundant physical evidence should remain among billions of fossils already found, not one occasional ‘aha’ event after another with overstated claims that are later demoted and disproved, as all widely touted ‘missing links’ have been.
The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ is conventionally assumed to represent the oldest time period of animal fossils, but shows the majority of life on Earth suddenly appearing intact in the same time period with no known predecessors, and mostly in modern form. If living species did not naturally arise from non-life and transform from one kind into another, then each kind of life must have been intelligently designed and created.
In an attempt to explain away this overwhelming problem, many modern evolutionists have adopted a fanciful concept called ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which is based on the idea that evolution did not occur gradually as expected by Darwin, but instead occurred so quickly at certain points in time that no evidence was left in the fossil record. In essence, then, the lack of any fossil evidence to support evolution is declared as evidence that evolution occurred but left no evidence. This type of argument is known as circular reasoning (not the highest form of logic).
Rather than honestly declare the whole process a scientific failure, the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ concept was created to hang on to the evolutionary idea without even a shred of supporting evidence. Ideas that have no physical evidence aren’t scientific theories, but unscientific conjectures. Since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support ‘punctuated equilibrium’, belief in it is unscientific.

Recent Soft Tissue and Living DNA in Supposedly Ancient Fossils

Soft tissue, living DNA and even intact blood has recently been found in many fossils, including dinosaur fossils. As in the popular movie Jurassic Park, these amazing finds have even inspired efforts to bring extinct creatures back to life! These finds include living DNA for creatures such asTyrannosaurus Rex, which is conventionally been assumed to be over 70 million years old.
DNA has also been found in insects in amber dated from 25 to 135 million years old.
Bacteria supposedly 250 million years old have also been revived with no DNA damage!
DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments more than 10,000 years. Before these amazing finds, therefore, it was assumed that living tissue and DNA was far too fragile to be preserved in the fossil record, since it was supposedly millions of years old. Now that living tissue and intact DNA has been found in fossils claimed to be millions of years old, however, evolutionists are at a loss to justify their belief in evolutionary long ages despite clear evidence that disproves them.
Despite such powerful evidence for relatively recent age of these creatures and the rocks their remains were found in, evolutionists still claim such creatures and sedimentary rocks they were discovered in are hundreds of millions of years old, because of their devoted belief in long ages of evolution.
The presence of living tissue and intact DNA in fossils proves that fossils are only thousands, not millions of years old.
Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex, Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.
Mary H. Schweitzer et al., Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.
M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth , June 1997, pp. 55-57.
Detecting Dinosaur DNA, Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.
George O. Poinar Jr., Recovery of Antediluvian DNA, Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700.
(The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park.).
Raúl J. Cano et al., Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil, Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.
Rob DeSalle et al., DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications, Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.
Cindy L. Satterfield et al., New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal, Geology, Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.
Russell H. Vreeland et al., Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal, Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.
R. John Parkes, A Case of Bacterial Immortality?, Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844-845.

Geologic Strata Formed in Days, not Millions of Years

Before the Mount St. Helens explosion in 1980, it was conventionally thought that sedimentary layers like those in the Grand Canyon (pictured above) required millions of years to form. That long held idea has now been literally exploded by the Mount St. Helens event.
The Mount St. Helens explosion produced a valley complete with sedimentary layers (a mini ‘Grand Canyon’) that would conventionally be assumed to be millions of years old, but we know it only took days because we saw it happen. This proves conclusively that sedimentary layers can be laid down very quickly during catastrophic events, such as volcanic explosions and floods.
Mount St. Helens is firsthand, observational appearance of an event that could not have happened according to conventional old Earth evolutionary ideas, but we know it did happen because we were eyewitnesses to the event in recent history.
Since Mount St. Helens produced a valley with sedimentary layers in days, similar structures such as the Grand Canyon could also have been produced in a very short period of time by a major catastrophe, not millions of years as conventionally taught.
John Morris, Steven A. Austin, Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003.
S.A. Austin, Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens, Origins Vol. 11, No. 2, 1984, pp.90-98.
S.A. Austin, Catastrophes in Earth History: A Source Book of Geologic Evidence, Speculation and Theory, El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1984, Monograph No. 13).
H.G. Coffin, Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake, Origins Vol. 10, 1983, pp.9-17.
H.G. Coffin, Erect Floating Stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington, Geology Vol. 11, 1983, pp.298-299.
R. Decker and B. Decker, The Eruption of Mount St. Helens, Scientific American, Vol. 244, No. 3, 1981, pp.68-80.
P.W. Lipman and D.R. Mullineaux, eds., The 1980 Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, 1981.
P.D. Rowley et al., Proximal Bedded Deposits Related to Pyroctastic Flows of May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens, Washington, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 96, 1985, pp. 1373-1383.
R.B. Waitt, Jr. et al., Eruption-Triggered Avalanche, Flood, and Lahar at Mount St. Helens — Effects of Winter Snowpack, Science, Vol. 221, 1983, pp. 1394-1397.

Doesn’t Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Billions of Years Old?

The most common ‘proof’ of long ages is radioactive dating, and evolutionary geology is the foundation for this idea. However, reliability of radioactive dating depends on a number of unprovable assumptions, so the age of the earth cannot be determined by this method. These unproved and unprovable assumptions include:

[list="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none;"]
[*]Initial composition of the rocks (no daughter atoms in the beginning)


[*]Uniformitarianism (a constant, steady rate of radioactive decay)


[*]No parent or daughter atoms added to or taken from the rocks


[/list]

If any of the above assumptions are wrong, projected timelines based on them are almost certainly wrong, and we have no way of determining rock ages.
Whenever we see rocks form today, we always see daughter atoms in the beginning, so evolutionary ideas about rock formation contradict observational science. We can’t possibly know the beginning state of the rocks or if radioactive decay processes have remained constant throughout all time, and without knowing if these foundational assumptions are true, the long age house rests on loose sand instead of the Rock.
Larry Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volumes I and II, El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2000, 2005.

Is There More Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?

In addition to living tissue and DNA found in fossils previously thought ancient,many ‘clocks’ show that Earth is only thousands, not millions or billions of years old, such as:

Earth’s Rotation


The rotational speed of the Earth is gradually slowing down because of gravitational drag forces of the sun and moon as well as other factors. If the Earth were billions of years old, as claimed, it would already be in tidal lock with the sun, the same way one side of the moon always faces the Earth.
Lord Kelvin, the renowned 19th-century physicist, used this slowing rotation as a reason why the Earth could not be very old. He calculated that Earth’s rotational speed would have been twice the present speed if it was over 7 billion years old. This decline in rotation rate is now known to be even greater than previously thought, so if the Earth had existed for even 5 billion years as conventionally claimed, then the difference between polar and equatorial radii would have been significantly greater than it actually is.
Moreover, if original rotation rates were greater, as a great age for the Earth would require, continents would have been distributed in tropical regions (near the Equator), and oceans would have collected in temperate and polar regions. This is a distribution that Kelvin also mentioned, and he noted that the lack of this continental/ocean distribution also falsifies a great age for the Earth.
No one has successfully challenged Kelvin’s physics to this day, but long age advocates have simply chosen to ignore it. By both Lord Kelvin’s original calculation and modern ones of this basic planetary movement and continental distribution, the Earth cannot be billions of years old.
Burchfield, Joe D., Lord Kelvin and the age of the Earth, New York, NY: Macmillan, 1975.

Planetary Magnetic Fields


Carl Friedrich Gauss, the famous physicist and mathematician, made the first measurement of Earth’s magnetic field in 1835, and it has been measured ever since. Earth’s magnetic field has now been accurately measured for over 150 years, and loses more than half its energy every 1,500 years. According to theU.S. Department of Commerce, based on 130 years of measurement, the Earth’s magnetic field will be completely gone by the year A.D. 3991.Projecting backward in time at this proven rate, if the Earth was over 10,000 years old, its 50x stronger magnetic field would have generated enough heat to liquefy the planet, and a million years ago would have completely vaporized the planet.
According to these measurements and projections of a fundamental planetary process, the Earth could not be over 10,000 years old.
R.S. Coe, M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687-92, 20 April 1995.
Snelling, A.A., Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 13(3), 1991, pp. 46- 50.
Humphreys, D.R., Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation, ICR Impact, no. 203, May 1990.
R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 93, April 1989, pp. 292-298.
Humphreys, D. R., The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):140-149, December 1984.
Barnes, T.G., Origin and destiny of the earth’s magnetic field, Institute for Creation Research Technical Monograph No. 4, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1983.
K. L. McDonald and R. H. Gunst, An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965, ESSA Technical Report IER 46 – IES 1, July 1967, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Table 3, p. 14.

Carbon-14 in Coal, Diamonds and Dinosaur Fossils


Carbon-14 is often assumed to prove that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, but this is a common misconception. Carbon-14 has a short half-life less than 6,000 years, so both evolutionists and creationists agree that radiocarbon dating is only useful for dating relatively young things, thousands of years old, and is invalid for measuring alleged long ages of evolution. Items older than 250,000 years (at most) should be completely ‘carbon-14 dead’, with no carbon-14 remaining at all. Things like coal, diamonds and fossils are usually not tested for carbon dating, since coal is already assumed to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old, and diamonds are assumed to be over a billion years old. In recent years, however, a key technical advance allowed much more precise measurement of the ratio of C-14 to C-12 atoms using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer, called the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method. Using the much more precise AMS method, leading radiocarbon laboratories in the world consistently found significant amounts of carbon in coal and diamond samples. If coal or diamonds were really millions or billions of years old (as evolutionists claim), no traces of carbon-14 would have been found.
Similarly, in 1990, two dinosaur bone fragments were submitted to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur, and the other was from an Allosaurus excavated near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. The carbon-14 analysis indicated that the dinosaur bones were between 10,000 and 16,000 years old, not 60-70 million years old as typically assumed.
To defend their long age assumption, evolutionists claim that all these samples must have been contaminated by outside carbon, but modern AMS methods eliminate the possibility of carbon contamination, and all samples from many different sources consistently showed the same results. Moreover, diamonds cannot be contaminated since they have incredibly strong lattice bonds.
C-14 in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils consistently shows they are only thousands of years old, not millions of years old, revealing that evolutionary long ages are false.
Baumgardner, J. R. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship, 2003, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142.
A. A. Snelling et al., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, 2003, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 269-284.
F. H. Schmidt, D. R. Balsley, and D. D. Leach, Early expectations of AMS: Greater ages and tiny fractions. One failure? — One success, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 29:97-99, 1987.

Helium in Zircons


Uranium and thorium decay by emitting alpha particles of helium nuclei as they decay to lead. Analysis of helium content of zircon samples conventionally considered to be over a billion years old revealed extremely high helium retention in these crystals. Helium should have diffused out of the zircon samples very rapidly and be completely gone if the Earth were more than several thousands of years old, and it certainly could not be billions of years old.Accelerated decay in zircon samples shows the Earth and its zircon cannot be more then 6,000 years old (give or take 2,000 years), not billions of years old as conventionally assumed.
Humphreys, D.R., Critics of Helium Evidence for a Young World Now Seem Silent, Journal of Creation, v. 24, no. 1, 2010, p. 14-16.
Humphreys, D.R., Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay, in L. Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II, El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2005, pp. 25-100.
Armitage, M.H., Helium Retention in Deep-core Zircons, American Laboratory, July 2004, pp. 17-20.
Humphreys, D.R., S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, and A.A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 1, June 2004, pp. 1-16.
Humphreys, D.R., New RATE Data Support Young World, Impact, no. 366, 2003, Institute for Creation Research.
Humphreys, D.R., S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
Humphreys, D.R., S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years, American Geophysical Union Fall Conference, 2003b, Abstract V32C-1047.

Long age evolutionists only selectively promote ‘clocks’ that generate long age timeframes, and then use them to brainwash trusting ‘students’ as if they were established fact. Dates yielded from the above models and many others are more scientific than those typically promoted by long age evolutionists, but this clear evidence for a young Earth is unscientifically ignored simply because it doesn’t fit with a long-age evolutionary worldview



1) http://www.miraclesormagic.com/the-fossil-record-evolution-evidence-creation-science.html

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum