Christian Forums

: Amo  Sat Aug 10, 2019 - 15:52:50
Another good one concerning mathematical problems with Darwin's theory.

: Amo  Sat Aug 10, 2019 - 12:47:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pk9oDrpf6k

Good video, which points out among other things, that atheist and evolutionary scientists are riding upon the backs of the developments of creation believing scientists.

They hijacked scientific methodology and investigation from scientists who believed in God and creation,

and now insist that no creationist can be a scientist.

Their prophet Darwin

gave them an alternative form of science which eliminated God from the scenario

and now they seek to lord this over all demanding that a creationist cannot be a scientist.

This as though faith in the scriptures excludes scientific methodology and investigation,

while faith in their prophet Darwin embodies the same.

To the contrary, the reintroduction of the holy scriptures to the people in their vernacular, enlightened minds, aroused curiosities, and paved the way to freedoms and liberties allowing for the development of scientific investigation and methodology by predominantly creation believing scientists.

: The Barbarian  Sun Aug 11, 2019 - 10:24:30
Which argument therein do you think is most compelling?    And if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?

As you learned, "evolutionary scientists" are also often Christians, who are Bible-believing scientists.    And as Newton freely admitted, he was able to make his discoveries because of the discoveries of the pagan and Islamic scientists who came before him.   Would you like to learn about that?

: Amo  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:15:13
As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process. Human speculations and imaginings have and do continually prove themselves wrong, as the history of evolutionists and evolution clearly establishes. The theory continuously evolves according to the faith of prophet Darwin's followers.

You've been misled there.   People like Democritus of Abdera and Ibn al-Haytham were the first to use and develop the scientific method.

: 4WD  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:48:51
Do you not understand that your faith in scripture is based in large part on your "human" speculation?

: Amo  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 12:15:18
Yes, my human speculation that the prophets of scripture received their testimony form God, in contrast to those who think otherwise and rely more upon prophets who place more faith in their own or other speculations  with no claim of the same.

: Amo  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:15:13
As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process. Human speculations and imaginings have and do continually prove themselves wrong, as the history of evolutionists and evolution clearly establishes. The theory continuously evolves according to the faith of prophet Darwin's followers.

: 4WD  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 12:41:03
That the prophets of scripture received their testimony from God is not speculation; that is what God says.  Your speculation comes with your assumption that you know better than others what God meant by the testimony He gave to the prophets.

I will give you a perfect example of that.  You "speculate" that the testimony in Genesis that the flood covered the earth it means the entire global earth.  But then you "speculate" that the testimony in Genesis that people from all the earth came to get food from Joseph because of the drought doesn't mean the entire global earth. You "speculate" on the meaning of words to suit your own speculative faith.

: The Barbarian  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 15:52:31
Barbarian asks:
Which argument therein do you think is most compelling?    And if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?

So you are going with this guys speculations and imaginings, even though you don't understand them?

: Amo  Sun Aug 18, 2019 - 11:52:03There are two different words interpreted as earth in the two different accounts you speak of.

: Amo  Sat Aug 24, 2019 - 14:51:58
I guess it depends upon which earth you are reading from which verse.

: 4WD  Sun Aug 25, 2019 - 14:47:26
There is more than one?

: Amo  Sun Aug 25, 2019 - 19:52:56
The lexicon words and definitions below the bible verses I provided were the Hebrew word used for earth in said verses and their definitions.

: 4WD  Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 05:12:19
One of the questions that has to be answered is what is/was the meaning of the Hebrew word when it was written.  As I pointed out the same Hebrew word was used to describe the flood as was used to describe the incident with Joseph.  But you have decided that that same word meant totally different things.  And you are adamant about that decision and declare anyone that disagrees with your assessment to be wrong, nearly to the point of being a nonbeliever.  You do that a lot and you are wrong.

: Amo  Mon Aug 26, 2019 - 22:20:46
I do not think they mean two different things. Just both different than what you take them to mean. Context is important.

: Amo  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 12:05:34
Do you really think you know who were the first to use and develop scientific method? As though such were recorded when it happened. I thought you are a bible believer.

Ecc 1:9  The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

: The Barbarian  Fri Aug 30, 2019 - 14:11:23
That's not scientific method.  Do you know what scientific method is?   The first person to use anything like it was Democritus of Abdera, and the first person to codify it into a formal procedure was  Ibn al-Haytham.   From him, Roger Bacon brought it to Europe.

: 4WD  Tue Aug 27, 2019 - 05:30:07
Yes it is. And what is the context? A big part of the context is the the setting, the ancient near east, for which the entire world was contained in and around the Mediterranean Sea.  The concept of a global earth nearly 8,000 miles in diameter was as far out of the context as you could get.

: Amo  Sun Sep 01, 2019 - 11:36:26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSbxCq70uc

A little dated, but a good video addressing out of place fossils which wreak havoc upon the theory of evolution.
I was not aware of the extent to which the human footprints along side of dinosaur prints found in Texas, had been examined by creationists.

Evolutionist of course trash or deny all such evidence,

and or testimony regarding even their own actions pertaining to it. Bottom line is, some one is lying.

: Amo  Sat Aug 31, 2019 - 15:08:37
Yea, that's the ticket. God who inspired Moses writings, had no idea of the size and diameter of the world. The bible was written by intellectually inferior men to yourself, who didn't know these things either. Presumption is, as presumption does.

: The Barbarian  Mon Sep 02, 2019 - 13:45:14
Indeed, the "man-tracks" were debunked as errors and frauds not by "evolutionists", but by YE creationists from Loma Linda University.  Would you like to hear how that happened?



Rusch, Wilbert H., Sr., 1971, "Human Footprints in Rock," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 201-213. In this article Rusch stated, "among creationist groups there is often considerable misplaced enthusiasm on the [man track] subject, with too great a willingness to jump to unjustified conclusions." Although his article focused on "man track" claims in locations other than the Paluxy, Rusch stated he would investigate the Paluxy claims, and make another report "should the results prove fruitful." He made no subsequent report. In 1981 Rusch related to me over the phone that he had visited the Paluxy sites in 1970 and 1971, and found "no definitive evidence" of human tracks. Ernest Booth (now deceased) investigated the Paluxy sites in 1970. Although Booth did not publish his findings, he related to me through letters and phone conversations that he agreed that the Taylor Site tracks were dinosaurian, and had found that the alleged human tracks on other sites were related to spurious phenomena. In a letter to me (dated November 29, 1981) Booth wrote, "Creationists have lost a lot of credibility over these so-called human tracks in the Paluxy... they are not human tracks at all...and many of them are not even tracks of any kind...We don't need this kind of evidence to support creation...."
...
During the early 1980's I repeatedly urged the Institute for Creation Research to come to Glen Rose to reexamine the "man tracks" on the Taylor Site. Shortly before I was about to publish my study results, John Morris finally took me up on my invitations, and, along with representatives of Films for Christ (invited by Morris), met me in October and November of 1985 at the Paluxy sites, where we viewed and discussed the evidence together. As a result of these meetings, ICR recently published an Impact article,[16] admitting that the Taylor Trail appears "obviously, dinosaurian," and that "none of the four trails at the Taylor Site can be today regarded as unquestionably human."

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm

Even before the film Footprints in Stone was released, the Taylor Site was studied by a another team of creationist scientists from Loma Linda University.[5] In contrast to the "man track" claims of the Taylor crew, the Loma Linda team concluded in their published report that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits, and that the tracks were probably the eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks, although they did not adequately explain how the tracks acquired their very elongated shape. Other creationists, such as Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc., and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society, also visited the site soon after the tracks site was first exposed, and expressed skepticism about the "man track" claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Those guys are creationists.   They trashed the evidence because they didn't want creationism associated with such foolishness.

There were some frauds.   At one time, you could order a "man track" from locals who took advantage of gullible people by carving out feet in chunks of rock. But mostly, it's wishful thinking and self-delusion. Not all creationists fell for it, as you see.

: 4WD  Mon Sep 02, 2019 - 14:28:11
God did but Moses didn't and neither did anyone reading what Moses wrote or hearing what Moses taught.  The earth to them was that small little bit of the near east that they were aware of and had heard about; no more and no less.  But more to the point, neither of the Hebrew words that have been translated "earth" could have possibly meant the global earth.  They had no concept of the global earth. The presumptions here are all yours, Amo.

: Amo  Wed Sep 04, 2019 - 21:18:55You think Moses was ignorant, no offense intended, but I think you are ignorant.

: 4WD  Thu Sep 05, 2019 - 05:25:30
Oh of course.  The old Amo straw man.  I didn't say Moses was ignorant; at least in the way you think of it.  That one is one you Amo.

God did but Moses didn't and neither did anyone reading what Moses wrote or hearing what Moses taught.  The earth to them was that small little bit of the near east that they were aware of and had heard about; no more and no less.

: The Barbarian  Thu Sep 05, 2019 - 15:28:03
Seems to me,  God told Moses that which He wanted to be passed on to the Israelites.   The precise nature of genetics and evolution seem to have not been among those things He wanted to be passed on.

: Amo  Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:18:31
Moses and Peter were not ignorant men as you suppose, who knew nothing beyond their immediate surroundings or situations. These presumptions are faulty reasoning based upon the willing ignorance the apostle and prophet Peter foretold in the above scriptures.

: 4WD  Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:30:04
And you, my dear Amo, do not even know the meaning of the word "ignorant".  Look it up in the dictionary.  Obviously Moses and Peter were men ignorant about a lot of things, just like the rest of us.  I am lacking in knowledge and/or training of a lot of things, just as you are.  Amo, ignorant and stupid do not the mean the same thing.  Neither Moses nor Peter were stupid men, but they were ignorant about a lot of things.  Does the fact that you do not know or understand that make you ignorant or stupid? You answer.

: 4WD  Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 17:08:25
Like you said, Amo, presumption is as presumption does.  That was the most ludicrous explanation that anyone could imagine.  That guy has tectionic plates moving thousands of miles in just three or four thousand years.  Shoot, one could almost water ski behind plates moving that fast.  But seriously, the work, the power, required to move that much mass that fast would be beyond imagination. That is not ignorance; that is stupidity.

: Amo  Sat Sep 07, 2019 - 10:06:58Not only has it happened, and in far less time than thousands of years,

: AmoYou simply limit God to your own understanding, and the testimony of His word to the same.

: AmoTo this end you define creation, the flood, and no doubt the final judgement of this world, as allegorical,

: AmoThis world has not been around anywhere near as long as you have imagined, nor will it remain anywhere near as long as you have imagined.

If you are speaking of the breakup of Pangaea and the movement of the tectonic plates to their present positions, then you have only your own uninformed imagination to rely on.  Neither the Bible nor science says such a thing.

As do you, Amo.  However I do limit my understanding of God to the testimony of His word.  That is precisely as it should be.  That is the purpose of His special revelation through His written word . There is also His general revelation from which we see that  "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa 19:1). But that you refuse to acknowledge any such thing preferring instead some wild imaginations of your own.

You lie. That is the reason that I refrain so often to interchange with you.  That is an out and out lie.  It is in fact a disgusting lie. I have never defined the creation nor the flood to be allegorical.  And I have never stated, suggested nor hinted at the final judgment as allegorical.  You seem to make up stuff about what others here write with the same abandonment that you make up stuff about what God has written.

Unlike you, I don't rely on my imagination for the length of time the universe has been in place.  And I have no idea whatsoever how long it will remain. Such prophetic utterances of the day the earth will end is the stuff of folks like you who read into the Scriptures what they want it to say.

: Amo  Sat Sep 07, 2019 - 17:58:54
Yes, it is just a theory,

based upon evidence backing up faith in the biblical flood account.

Just as evolution is just a theory, based upon evidence backing up faith in the writings of Darwin.

There is no hint of evolution anywhere in the word of God.

: The Barbarian  Sat Sep 07, 2019 - 19:01:36
Plate tectonics is a theory.   So is gravitation.   But it's probably not a good idea to step off of high places, just the same.   The evidence for plate tectonics is compelling, including the fact that we can observe and measure the current speed of the continental plates.

That's just faith.   We can't even conclusively prove whether the flood was an allegory or a real flood.  The evidence for a great regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time, suggests that it's a real flood.  But not a global one.   And the Bible doesn't say it's global.

No scientist has "faith" in Darwin; they accept his theory, because the predictions of the theory have been repeatedly verified by new evidence.

There's no hint of protons, therein, either.   But we know by observation that they exist, just as we can observe evolution and plate tectonics.

You lie. That is the reason that I refrain so often to interchange with you.  That is an out and out lie.  It is in fact a disgusting lie. I have never defined the creation nor the flood to be allegorical.  And I have never stated, suggested nor hinted at the final judgment as allegorical.  You seem to make up stuff about what others here write with the same abandonment that you make up stuff about what God has written.

The creation account is not intelligible if taken literal given what we now know to be the case.  Given all the evidence to the actual physical age of the universe, the Genesis account of creation cannot be considered a literal description.  The description of light, which comprises only a very narrow range of the complete electromagnetic frequency spectrum, must be taken as figurative; other wise there is no basis for the existence of gamma rays, X-rays, and all the rest of the spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The statement of "there was evening and there was morning" must be taken as figurative given what we know to be the literal cause of literal evenings and mornings. And so much more of the complete description as presented must be taken as figurative given what we know about such things today.

Actually, I believe that Genesis 2:1-2 is figurative speech from God as is most of the rest of the chapter.

No, we accept Genesis as literal where it seems appropriate and figurative where that seems appropriate.  That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood.

Much of the whole of chapter 1 is indeed figurative language.

The joke is not in what Moses wrote; he wrote as God directed.  The joke is always in the interpretation.  It is, or should be, evident that what God directed Moses to write about creation in Genesis was not to be taken as a literal account of God's work of creation.

Contrary to your question, of course the biblical account is true.  The question is really whether the account is a literal account.  Is Revelation an accurate account of the end times? Of course it is.  Is it a 100% literal account or a metaphoric account?  I will opt for the latter.   Is the Genesis account 100% literal or does it, much like Revelation, carry significant metaphoric content?  I will opt for the latter.  Now if you can prove that is not the case, I will consider it.  But I am not holding my breath that you can do that.

: 4WD  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:48:51
Do you not understand that your faith in scripture is based in large part on your "human" speculation?

: Rella  Sun Sep 08, 2019 - 08:35:29
First: you should reword this to say "your understanding of scripture'

Yet most , who quote scriptures they find acceptable for their explanations are in constant debates with others, (Yes, I am guilty)for the inability to arrive at a consensus on many things.

And those things range from, among other things,  being a young earth believer, evolutionist, the flood, baptism, was the thief on the cross going to be saved, what day the crucifixion happened, and even slightly differing beliefs in the crucifixion itself, or if Jesus was God incarnate, the Holy Trinity, even if Adam was the first man.

: Amo  Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:23:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDHDaSvP8Y

Haven't kept up with the dinosaur tissue issue for a while now. Apparently evolutionary scientists avoid or pass over the topic and its significance when confronted with the evidence now.

: The Barbarian  Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:32:42
Scientists have known for a long time that organic molecules can remain intact for hundreds of millions of years under specific circumstances.  It's been known to happen in invertebrates since I was an undergraduate.   It was surprising that such conditions would occur where land animals live, but there it is.

The most important part of the T. rex find was that it gave scientists another way to test the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   They took a little of the heme found in that fossil (heme is a part of a hemoglobin molecule) and injected it into lab animals, which produced antibodies against it.   

The antibodies turned out to react most strongly against the heme of birds, more so than the heme of other reptiles.   And so the finding that birds are descended from reptiles was once more confirmed.

: Amo  Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:31:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVg_RFhRhuA

Been waiting to hear about results from those examining this discovery. Haven't found anything yet.

: Amo  Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:44:42
Presumption is as presumption does.

Knowing about the soft tissue issue, does not explain it. To the contrary, if they have known about it so long, why haven't they been actively seeking an explanation through more intense study and investigation?

I notice the skull of the animal has a zygomatic arch, and differentiated teeth, neither of which(SFAIK) have ever been found on a dinosaur, much less a theropod dinsaur.   Learn about it here:
https://www.purposegames.com/game/a1cacbafdf

The Tyrannosaur Tooth Toolkit

.......................

Not all mammals have differentiated sets of teeth. Dolphins, for example, have jaws full of nearly identical, conical teeth. Among reptiles, on the other hand, multiple species have been found with a variety of tooth shapes in their jaws. Pakasuchus, an extinct cousin of modern crocodiles found in the 105-million-year-old rock of Tanzania, had three different types of teeth in its jaws, and even the mighty Tyrannosaurus and Albertosaurus possessed differentiated teeth. What this meant for how the tyrant dinosaurs ate was addressed in a Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences paper by Miriam Reichel last year.

About Dinosaur Teeth

Because of the specificity of dinosaur diets many species typically have only a single type of tooth in their jaws with variations only in size. The big exception to this is most meat-eating dinosaurs, who's teeth sometimes varied significantly in size and shape as one moves back in the jaw. The front teeth (premaxilla teeth) were typically much more conical in shape and closely packed making them ideal for gripping and pulling. The teeth further back in the jaw frequently were more blade like to aid in cutting and slicing of meat. This variation in tooth shape sometimes makes it very difficult to assign isolated teeth to a particular dinosaur species.

But let's see what I can find...
(Barbarian checks)   Yep.  The zygomatic arch is limited to the Synapsida, the reptiles that led to the therapsids, and ultimately to mammals.

Evolution of the Jugal/Zygomatic Bones


EARLY VERTEBRATES, DINOSAURS, AND BIRDS
The origins of the zygoma or jugal require an understanding of the homologies of cranial bones in stem gnathostomes, including jawless (agnathans, consisting of hagfishes, lampreys, and ostracoderms) and jawed fishes (consisting of placoderms, acanthodians, chrondrichthyans, and osteichthyans). Gai et al. (2017) review the complex anatomy in these taxa and the evidence for deep homologies associated with the zygoma/jugal. They include new fossil evidence. They conclude by formulating a model for the major steps in the evolution of the zygoma. They speculate that the zygoma arose from specialized dermal bones in ostracoderms perhaps as early as the Ordovician. They provide evidence for the morphology and homology of the zygoma/jugal and surrounding bones in the evolution of the osteichthyans, in the lineage from the stem sarcopterygians to osteolepiforms, and during the transition from osteolepiforms to tetrapods.

: The Barbarian  Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:49:53
I notice the skull of the animal has a zygomatic arch, and differentiated teeth, neither of which(SFAIK) have ever been found on a dinosaur, much less a theropod dinsaur.   Learn about it here:
https://www.purposegames.com/game/a1cacbafdf

You have to turn off any ad blocker.

But let's see what I can find...
(Barbarian checks)   Yep.  The zygomatic arch is limited to the Synapsida, the reptiles that led to the therapsids, and ultimately to mammals.

And while teeth were different in different theropods, each theropod had one kind of teeth:
  https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000562013.pdf

: The Barbarian  Sat Oct 19, 2019 - 08:54:53
True.   Those guys presumed organic molecules couldn't exist for that length of of time.    Invert paleontologists had, for a long time, known better.

To those whose faith lies in YE creationism, commonality means nothing.    However, we can test the theory by comparing heme of organisms of known descent.   Turns out, it confirms the finding.

For those whose faith lies in the word of God, there is no need to invent fake stories or to deny the facts.   We know birds and dinosaursare closely related, and it doesn't impact on our faith in God at all.

There was, when it was first discovered.   Turns out lot of iron tends to preserve proteins.  Would you like to learn about it?

Evolution of the Jugal/Zygomatic Bones

: Amo  Sun Oct 20, 2019 - 10:47:12
Yes, we know you think much of the bible is filled with fake stories.

One of the videos I linked addressed the poor attempt of yet another theory of evolutionists concerning iron preserving tissues for countless millions of years.

Of course evolutionists conveniently claim all such scriptures to be fairy tales.

So be it.

: The Barbarian  Sun Oct 20, 2019 - 19:27:01
The point is that they are found in mammals and mammal-like reptiles, by not in dinosaurs, birds or crocodiles.   So the "fossil" is a synapsid, apparently a cat.

It does explain why such molecules (not tissues, which are groups of cells organized to some function) are always found in the presence of iron.

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

Iron (/ˈaɪərn/) is a chemical element with symbol Fe (from Latin: ferrum) and atomic number 26. It is a metal that belongs to the first transition series and group 8 of the periodic table. It is by mass the most common element on Earth, forming much of Earth's outer and inner core. It is the fourth most common element in the Earth's crust.

In its metallic state, iron is rare in the Earth's crust, limited to deposition by meteorites. Iron ores, by contrast, are among the most abundant in the Earth's crust, although extracting usable metal from them requires kilns or furnaces capable of reaching 1500 °C or higher, about 500 °C higher than what is enough to smelt copper..........

The body of an adult human contains about 4 grams (0.005% body weight) of iron, mostly in hemoglobin and myoglobin. These two proteins play essential roles in vertebrate metabolism, respectively oxygen transport by blood and oxygen storage in muscles. To maintain the necessary levels, human iron metabolism requires a minimum of iron in the diet. Iron is also the metal at the active site of many important redox enzymes dealing with cellular respiration and oxidation and reduction in plants and animals.[5]

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/hemoglobin_and_functions_of_iron/

Iron is an essential element for blood production. About 70 percent of your body's iron is found in the red blood cells of your blood called hemoglobin and in muscle cells called myoglobin. Hemoglobin is essential for transferring oxygen in your blood from the lungs to the tissues. Myoglobin, in muscle cells, accepts, stores, transports and releases oxygen.

About 6 percent of body iron is a component of certain proteins, essential for respiration and energy metabolism, and as a component of enzymes involved in the synthesis of collagen and some neurotransmitters. Iron also is needed for proper immune function.

About 25 percent of the iron in the body is stored as ferritin, found in cells and circulates in the blood. The average adult male has about 1,000 mg of stored iron (enough for about three years), whereas women on average have only about 300 mg (enough for about six months). When iron intake is chronically low, stores can become depleted, decreasing hemoglobin levels....................

http://www.irondisorders.org/our-need-for-iron/

Iron is so important that without it all life would cease to exist. Every living thing: plants, animals, human beings, bacteria (good and bad), even cancer cells all need iron to survive and grow.

Plants require iron to make chlorophyll, which is necessary for growth and generating oxygen for people to breathe.  Plants, animals, and human beings require iron to make DNA, which encodes all life. Animals and humans also need iron to make hemoglobin, which delivers oxygen to the body. Iron also carries carbon dioxide out of the body, which plants need to function.

Humans also need iron to make myoglobin in muscles. Myoglobin is a protein like hemoglobin, except that it is an oxygen storage protein contained in muscles of the body. We call upon the oxygen stored in myoglobin when we use our muscles to walk, run, climb or move in any way.............................

: The Barbarian  Sun Oct 20, 2019 - 19:31:43
If you think the Bible is filled with fake stories, then one of us does.    I have shown you more than once that YE creationists often tell fake stories about what's in the Bible, but that's an entirely different thing.


It does explain why such molecules (not tissues, which are groups of cells organized to some function) are always found in the presence of iron.

Scientists to point out that the revisions  that YE creationists try to apply to scripture are often fairy tales.

Yep

: Amo  Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 11:12:35
Even if the above proves correct, you were wrong about the differentiated teeth,

as you may well be proved wrong in the near future concerning a zygomatic arch.

You know all the evidence is not and cannot yet be in

why act so very confident about observations that are continually being updated and changed with new evidence.

: Amo  Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 11:41:01
Looks like there is plenty good reason for the presence of iron apart from some form of preservation that is highly unlikely to occur naturally.

: Amo  Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 11:43:41
Please do provide us with the revisions and fairy tales of YE's you claim they promote.

: The Barbarian  Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 21:11:09
You can look at the remains and see it.  One of the major differences between dinosaurs and mammals, is mammals have differentiated teeth.

Mammals have specialized teeth, such as canines for tearing through meat and molars for grinding food. Reptile teeth are uniform in shape, though they might vary in size.
https://sciencing.com/differences-similarities-between-mammals-reptiles-8179273.html

The only exception is the one that proves the rule.   Some mammal/reptile transitional therapsids had specialized teeth, and the enlarged fenestration in therapsid skulls eventually formed a zygomatic arch found only in mammals:
https://cooldinofacts.fandom.com/wiki/Therapsids

See above.  Right at the point that mammals evolved from therapsids, we have this...

(http://dev.iziko.org.za.dedi6.cpt3.host-h.net/sites/default/files/styles/exhibition-gallery-420x280/public/collections/inages/1.jpg?itok=7su2LsuT)

Thrinaxodon.  A cynodont ("dog tooth") therapsid.   Where there is writing, the enlarged fenestration of the skull (to allow larger muscles to attach to the jaw) produced a bridge of bone that will eventually form the zygomatic arch.

See above.   There it is.  The only reptiles with specialized teeth were those transitional to mammals.

As you see, your assumption is incorrect.  We've known about this for decades.

: The Barbarian  Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 21:14:20
The iron isn't there to preserve things.   They just happened to be preserved because there was a lot of iron there.

: The Barbarian  Fri Oct 25, 2019 - 21:21:06
One particularly weird story:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall"

Just not possible.   Even many creationists admit it.

"There was no rain before the Flood"

Not possible.

"The remains of the Ark were found on Mt. Ararat."

Easily debunked.  How many would you like to see?

: Amo  Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 09:05:47
As if you or any creationists know what is possible or not with God.

So do you think God wastes energy, and heaven is subject to decay?

You reject the global flood,

and therefore the different world that existed before it. The earth was watered in a different way preflood, according to scripture in any case.

Sustaining a world without rain, is no dilemma for Him

Christians being mistaken about evidence supporting their faith in the scriptures does not equal fairy tale.

It is your belief that the scriptures testifying of the global flood

is a fairy tale, that will not ever allow you to believe that the Ark could be found, no doubt.

YE's simply don't take the bible according to Barbarian or evolutionists to be the truth. this is not making up stories about what it says.

: Amo  Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 08:40:04
No.

: The Barbarian  Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 15:42:34
Barbarian, regarding creationist fairy tales:
One particularly weird story:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall"

Just not possible.   Even many creationists admit it.

Answers in Genesis seems to think so:
There are several important aspects of the second law of thermodynamics that must be considered in discussing this issue. The most commonly cited issue is that of "disorder." The term used to describe this disorder is entropy.1 The second law states that closed systems tend towards increased entropy—an increase in disorder. Another way to look at this is that the amount of energy available for work in a closed system is decreasing.2 The law allows for increasing the amount of order in a given system, so when applying the law, the system being discussed must be carefully defined.

So if things are "running down," does it follow that this would not have begun until man sinned and brought about the effects of the Curse? Actually, this statement does not hold up under closer examination.

Actually, this "running down" is not necessarily bad, as it is responsible for many of the "good" things that happen around us every day. We could not digest our food without the second law being in operation. The breaking down of food into simpler molecules is a consequence of this process. The molecules are broken down to release the energy that is used to maintain the body and even provide for growth.

If Adam walked up or down a hill, he could not maintain his footing without a degree of friction between his feet and the ground. Friction is a process that converts kinetic energy into heat, another example of entropy.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall/

Turns out, the net energy of the universe seems to be 0.0.   So no.   And heaven is not part of the physical universe, and is not bound by the laws God established here.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood. Many of them make this statement quite dogmatically as if it were obvious from a reading of the biblical text. However, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

Proponents of the "no-rain" view refer to Genesis 2 to support their position. Genesis 2:5–6 states that "the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (emphasis added).

From this passage, all that can really be said is that no rain had fallen up to that time—that is, prior to the creation of man. Remember, Genesis 2 is primarily a detailed recap of Day Six of Creation Week. The passage describes the environment before Adam was created. This mist may have been one of the primary methods that God used to hydrate the dry land He created on Day Three. Furthermore, while this mist was likely the watering source for that vegetation throughout the remainder of Creation Week, the text does not require it to be the only water source after Adam's creation.

Some argue that this mist eliminated the need for rain until the time of the Flood. However, presence of the mist prior to Adam's creation does not preclude the existence of or the need for rain after he was created.

Genesis 2:5–6 reveals that before the Sixth Day of Creation Week, God had watered the plants He made with a mist, but had not yet caused rain or created a man to till the ground. To demand that rain didn't happen until after the Flood from this passage has no more logical support than to claim, from the passage, that no one farmed until after the Flood.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/

As does God's Word in Genesis.

Even Biblically-informed creationists reject that new belief, as you have seen.    God is much greater and wiser than you would like Him to be.

That all things are possible for God, does not mean that God did everything you can dream up for Him to do.   As your fellow creationists show, there's no scriptural basis at all for your new belief.

Inventing fantastic stories, and attributing them to God, that's making fairy tales.

As you know, scriptures do not testify to a global flood.

The supposed finding of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (which is not the "mountains of Ararat" mentioned in the Bible) is yet another fairy tale, as Answers in Genesis points out.

Your fellow creationists disagree with you.  Talk to them.

: The Barbarian  Sun Oct 27, 2019 - 16:39:26
It's important, Amo, for you to realize that your particular interpretation of God's word is your particular interpretation, just as others also have their interpretation.   In the case of evolution/creationism, the text is not clearly one or the other.  If it was, then all Christians who know that the Bible is God's word would agree about it.

But we do not.   The important thing to remember is that this has nothing to do with God's message to us.   The Bible isn't about biology or science; it's about God and man and our relationship.   And unless someone makes an idol of his personal interpretation, what he thinks of evolution has nothing whatever to do with his salvation.

It's just not what your salvation depends on.

: Amo  Fri Nov 01, 2019 - 08:45:17Scripture is scripture, not interpretation. I quoted scriptures, not interpretation. The scriptures say what they say and plainly state, apart from interpretation. You interpret them to mean evolution, I simply believe what they plainly state. No interpretation necessary.

Such naivety. You interpret what you think they plainly state. Such interpretation is no less than any other.  You simply choose to interpret literally what some others choose to interpret figuratively.  Still, it is no less an interpretation.

The Bible plainly states that "the sun rises".  You interpret what the Bible plainly states figuratively.  Many, perhaps most, before Copernicus and some others in and around his time interpreted that literally.  Both are interpretations.

So do not pride yourself that you "simply believe what they plainly state".  You pick and choose which you believe should be interpreted literally and which should be interpreted figuratively.

As St. Augustine cautioned us, we should be careful when scripture can be taken in different ways, not to assume our way is God's way.   And he mentions that we should always be open to new understanding that illuminates something formerly not clear.

All of us should have the humility to admit that we can be wrong.

: Amo  Fri Nov 08, 2019 - 09:00:56
4WD -
Barbarian -
In other words, there is no truth, but that which each individual creates for themselves by way of personal or private interpretation.

Of course that is just my interpretation of what these individuals just said. None of us can really know what they actually meant. Each will have to interpret the meaning of their posts for themselves and then just leave it alone I suppose, because we all have the right to make their words mean whatever we want, right.

Such would amount to the complete break down of society if applied to all communications. How can or could God judge the world according to the acceptance or rejection of His word, if all are free to make His word mean whatever they wish?

Tell us 4WD and Barbarian please, what is your interpretation of the above scriptures?

: The Barbarian  Fri Nov 08, 2019 - 09:27:35
That is apparently the YE creationist position.  But it wasn't Augustine's position. He merely pointed out that where there is uncertainty in the meaning of scripture, one should be willing to revise one's opinion when new information is found.

Seems clear to me.  If something in scripture is not unequivocally clear, we should keep an open mind on it.

Perhaps it would start with the humility to realize that one can be wrong.   I do notice that that there is almost no debate among Christians as to the essential doctrines of our faith.  Maybe that's something you should consider.

It says that if you make an idol of your personal interpretations of scripture, you may later regret it.   Listen to him on that.

: Amo  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:36:37
"Christian evolutionary scientists" have no choice but to deny much of the bible as fairy tale or allegory which apparently cannot be explained.

Muslims and most pagans were and are creationists,

The OP is addressing those how insist that creationists cannot be scientists.

: The Barbarian  Sun Nov 10, 2019 - 00:50:02
Nonsense.  Much of it is figurative.   But most Christians realize this, not just Christians who are scientists.   "Fairy tale" is the characterization of YE creationists, as far as I have seen.

I know a fair number of Muslim scientists. None of them are creationists.  So there is that.

I can think of several who are/were in recent years.   Kurt Wise, Harold Coffin, Gerald Aardsma, Baumgartner, among them. A small minority, but they do exist.

: Amo  Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 10:18:36
In another thread not to long ago, I brought up the issue of "scientists" continually finding complexity in living organisms further and further back in time. This is of course because the evolutionary deep time fairy tale is just that.

: Alan  Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 11:10:20

No, it's because as technology grows, science discovers newer means to accurately find and record collected data. We have pointed that out to you over and over but you continuously stand on your opinion that if science refutes itself it must all be unreliable. Of course that is completely untrue in the real world.

: 4WD  Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 12:23:53
Alan, Amo hasn't a clue about anything related to science or the people who study it.

Let's face it; even the very phrase "creation scientists" is an oxymoron.

: Amo  Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 19:14:15
Contrary to your puffed up exclamations, you are not the masters and lords of scientific method and reasoning. The same evidence is here for all to see.

: Jaime  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 06:15:12
It doesn't have to explain the miraculous origin from the confines of the physical, but just admit that it is the most likely, because trying to squeeze such an event into the physical is pretty much as ludicrous as they think a miraculous creation is.

: Jaime  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 07:02:44
I disagree of course. Science would be better served if the reality of creation was at least admitted as a possibility.

: 4WD  Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 12:23:53


Let's face it; even the very phrase "creation scientists" is an oxymoron.

: Amo  Fri Nov 08, 2019 - 22:16:45
Nothing can be unequivocally clear to someone who simply chooses not believe that which is plainly and conclusively stated, as you make obvious. So Peter, whom your faith proclaims was the first Pope, was wrong? Is that correct?

: seekingHiswisdom  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 08:49:30
Why?

: Jaime  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 06:15:12
I would contend that science includes the study our origins. If our origins include a creation, and it does, creation science is a perfectly good model and term.

Traditional science, of course, cannot consider a miraculous origin, one that is absolutely true and real.

It doesn't have to explain the miraculous origin from the confines of the physical,

but just admit that it is the most likely,

: 4WD  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 05:14:50
And contrary to your puffed up exclamations, you are not the master and lord of biblical apprehension and reasoning.  The same Bible is here for all to read and understand.

I say again, the very concept of a creation scientist is an oxymoron.  There is no such thing as creation science.  Science is the study of the physical; creation is the work of the spiritual and lies wholly outside of the physical.

: seekingHiswisdom  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 09:18:29
Nothing can be unequivocally clear to someone who simply chooses not believe that which is plainly and conclusively stated    ::frown::

I am not defender on any evolutionist. Everyone here knows that. (And I refuse to ever again explain why)

But the facts are.... AND THESE ARE FACTS... that there is credible evidence of things having been created, either in God's merely speaking a word, working with his Lincoln Logs and Tinker Toys... (you young ones will need to search for those), silly putty (perhaps the nucleus of the big bang?)  or even his basic chemistry set. (NO I am NOT making light of a serious conversation)

There is zero doubt that the solar systems and universes... all of them came from God... how ever they happened.

BUT... and this is what you seeming do not understand.

There is not reason in the world to believe that the Holy Bible and the people talked about in there
is the end of the story.

There is every reason to believe that the Holy Bible,or let's say the books that some men decided to include there in, is our handbook.

And every reason to believe that "WE" are set apart from other of God's creations, for a purpose.

Somewhere in eternity, when earth, as we know it, has passed.... (read your bible)... we may learn that
a quintillion, trillion years ago God masterfully set the first plant in the skys. DO NOT dare say know because you cannot possible know when that happened.

And there is every possibility to believe that somewhere in a galaxy far,far away a "young" earth with
a new creation has happened.

YOU cannot possibly be so selfish as to truly believe that 6K or 7K or 13K years ago God created the earth and mankind... ( the Genesis story)... and hung every star in the sky for our pleasure?

Oy.....

OK, off my rant.

You need to look at what things are discovered and use your common sense and knowledge of things you
can reasonable accept or deny. (for me I deny the absolute evolution of everything)

Read your handbook. The Holy Bible... that was given for us. And  then think about why we came into being in the first place and know, definitively, that we (mankind) are set apart... for some reason.

: Jaime  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:37:09
Science absolutely CAN admit a miraculous beginning and be correct and not step out of it's bounds but it won't.

: Jaime  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:46:46
They wouldn't admit it if it happened to be able to be proved.

That is faith, not fact. If it were fact it would have resulted in a "proof" for creation which it has not been able to do.

: Amo  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:53:41
That is one view, here is another -

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

: Amo  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:05:19


You admit that the physical world came from spiritual creation but deny that real science can lead to such a conclusion. What sense does that make. At least you admit in this confession that your science and God have nothing to do with each other. So be it.

: seekingHiswisdom  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 12:50:23
Stop and think what you and others here are actually saying and then ask yourself this.

If the physical world came from spiritual creation. Which I absolutely believe is a correct statement...of things seen and unseen in the skies...n a distance so vast that man will never be able to reach into....

Why?

Why were we created in the first place? ARE WE GOD'S 2 legged version of an ant farm?

Hundreds and millions and billions and trillions of things beyond the surface of earth, yet there is only us?

WHY?

If you can grasp the immensity of this thought, even in a nano molecule of your mind, you would understand this extends well beyond science or faith.

We will never know why. We can never know why.

And the vastness of God's work is not confined to a mere 66 o 73 books of the bible. But those 66 or 73 books are the most important textbook we will ever have and read.

Why?

Because this book... was given to us. Not to original man when he came into being.

But it can be confusing in many areas.... Genesis not being the least of things because I believe in my heart of hearts that
the beginning of man walking on earth is not important. Therefore we have no need to know the specifics.

We just leave it up to science to give us an answer...

I mean... they have done such a fine job of explaining the myriad of health issues we all face, and many with no cure.









Why, in the vast scheme of the universes and cosmos, and solar systems...

: Alan  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:43:57

That is faith, not fact. If it were fact it would have resulted in a "proof" for creation which it has not been able to do.

: Amo  Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 08:35:32
All presumptions of an evolutionist, which could change at any time via new evidence, as so very much of evolutionary theory has and does.

Why did the articles I quoted speak of dinosaurs with differentiated teeth? Were they wrong? Expound. Define specialized teeth. So no dinosaurs had specialized teeth for dong what they did with their teeth?

: Amo  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:05:19
Same old same old crap. You do not believe that what the bible simply states happened, could happen. You do not believe God could create this world in six days, therefore it is not true and must mean something else other than what it simply states.

: Amo At least you admit in this confession that your science and God have nothing to do with each other. So be it.

: Jaime  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:37:09
Science absolutely CAN admit a miraculous beginning and be correct and not step out of it's bounds but it won't.

: Jaime  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 06:36:24
So science admitting that and allowing for a miraculous creation should be no problem.

: Jaime  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 07:09:31It seems to me scientists DO though. Science is devoid of idealogy, scientists are not. Its similar to reporting the news. News itself is amorphous, if only handled that way, but news people are not devoid of idealogical bias and a lot of times resort to using terms like consensus where there is informed opposition.

: Jaime  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 07:09:31
It seems to me scientists DO though.

: Alan  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:58:15

That may be proof to you but it's empty words to a non believer.

: The Barbarian  Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 20:28:30
It probably seems like cheating to a YE creationist.   As new evidence appears, evolutionary theory changes. 

As you learned differentiated teeth are found only in mammals and the mammal-like reptiles.   Here's  a good shot theropod teeth:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3813/33253876222_b0f48be427_b.jpg)
All one kind.   No molars, no canines, no premolars, no incisors.  Just one kind, ziphodont, in this case.   Some other theropods had other kinds, but they didn't have a combination of kinds.   Always one kind.   Just like this one.   Learn the details here:
https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app000562013.pdf

: 4WD  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 04:55:01
That is simply not true.  I believe that God could have created the universe in six minutes, or six seconds.  He could have created the universe 10,000 years ago making it look as if it had taken billions of years.  He could have placed everything in its place just as we see it now.  And there is no way scientifically to prove that He didn't.  I just don't believe that He did. Again, that is not true.  I do not admit to any such thing.  In fact, I believe that the science is precisely as God created it. I believe that the natural laws controlling the universe and everything in it are exactly what God created. I believe that what we see today is the direct result of all that he put in place in the very beginning.

So please stop trying to interpret what I believe about creation through your own limited understanding of how things really are.

: 4WD  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 07:05:03
It seems to me that you are thinking of science as some strange anthropomorphic type of entity.  It isn't.  It really is nothing more than a field of study.  It doesn't make decisions.  It doesn't make declarations.  It doesn't establish thought processes.

: Amo  Sat Nov 23, 2019 - 12:35:06
Those words were written and recorded for all of humanity, including and specifically non believers. They are not empty at all, but will most certainly come up before every creature in the judgment.

: Alan  Sat Nov 23, 2019 - 13:22:09

As true as that may be, it will never sway the minds of non-believers nor will it add to their studies and documentation of research.

: 4WD  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 04:55:01...  In fact, I believe that the science is precisely as God created it. I believe that the natural laws controlling the universe and everything in it are exactly what God created. I believe that what we see today is the direct result of all that he put in place in the very beginning. ...

: Amo  Sat Nov 23, 2019 - 13:13:39
And again, you simply do not believe what God's word simply states.

: NorrinRadd  Sat Nov 23, 2019 - 21:26:55
What do you mean by "simply states"?

If you mean the so-called "plain reading," then by that standard Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 flatly contradict each other at various points.

YECs have an interpretation that attempts to deal with the inconsistencies.

TEs have a different interpretation that attempts to deal with the inconsistencies.

: Amo  Sat Nov 23, 2019 - 22:21:07
No, God's word does not contradict itself. Your understanding of it apparently does. Repetition and enlargement adds details, but does not contradict.

: NorrinRadd  Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 06:25:42
Gen. 2:5-9, taken at face value, or in their "plain sense," contradict Gen. 1:11, 26 when taken in their "plain sense."

They do not repeat and enlarge, they contradict.  Now, there are various ways to interpret and harmonize them, but not by just taking them as verbatim factual and true.

ORIGINS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS

We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004). There is suggestive evidence that photosynthetic organisms were present approximately 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago, in the form of stromatolites, layered structures similar to forms that are produced by some modern cyanobacteria, as well as numerous microfossils that have been interpreted as arising from phototrophs (Des Marais, 2000). In all these cases, phototrophs are not certain to have been the source of the fossils, but are inferred from the morphology or geological context. There is also isotopic evidence for autotrophic carbon fixation at 3.7 to 3.8 billion years ago, although there is nothing that indicates that these organisms were photosynthetic. All of these claims for early photosynthesis are highly controversial and have engendered a great deal of spirited discussion in the literature (Buick, 2008). Evidence for the timing of the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis and the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere is discussed below. The accumulated evidence suggests that photosynthesis began early in Earth's history, but was probably not one of the earliest metabolisms and that the earliest forms of photosynthesis were anoxygenic, with oxygenic forms arising significantly later.

: Jaime  Sun Nov 17, 2019 - 06:36:24
So science admitting that and allowing for a miraculous creation should be no problem.

I know YOU and others here don't discount a miraculous creation, but scientist in general refuse to go there and even mock those that do. Yes, science needs to focus on what happens AFTER the first nanosecond, because intelligent design and creation is the most reasonable explanation of reality.

: Amo  Sat Nov 23, 2019 - 13:10:41
No, modifying theory according to increased evidence is certainly justifiable.

Being adamantly rigid, staunchly self confident, and talking down to others concerning theories that do in fact undergo constant change as though said theories are set in concrete, is...

Your constant inference that others have learned from such nonsense as you suggest above, is a prime example of the same.

If fossils are found tomorrow with differentiated teeth where you and yours claim they cannot be

you will simply modify your theory and move along

as though you didn't act like a pompous ass concerning such previously. I thought I had provided examples which questioned your above assertion. Don't remember exactly now. I'll have to look back and further into the matter.

: Jaime  Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 12:20:08
No evidence of intelligent design? Really, that's your position?

Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."

: Amo  Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 21:12:06

Shakespeare said all the world is a stage, but he was just a writer and entertainer, thanks to evolutionary scientists we now know that all the world was and is a lab. Fairy tale evolution though, has a lab technicians problem, there are none in their theory. Their lab which is the world, is run by only a single lab technician called random chance. In their fairy tale depictions, random chance can continually perform the duties of countless human lab techs with exact purpose and intent, and miraculously out perform all of them. How about that, random chance creating the perfect conditions for evolution over and again trillions of times. Why not, if your'e going to believe in fairy tales, you might as well go all the way.

: Texas Conservative  Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 21:55:49
Now we are saying inferences, and scientists use the best available information to string together an the best possible explanation given the evidence.

Totally fine with that. 

I thought there were those here earlier that used words like "FACT" to describe the best possible explanation given the evidence.

: The Barbarian  Mon Nov 25, 2019 - 08:43:45
Didn't see that.   When we say that evolution is a fact, it's because a change in allele frequency in populations over time, is an observed phenomenon.   The best possible explanation, given the evidence, is evolutionary theory.    One is a fact, and one is an explanation that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Bill Nye is an engineer, which means that his education was a little light on the epistemology and process of science, and heavy on applications.   Back in the day, biologists were expected to have sufficient understanding of how we know things to get the difference between facts like evolution and the theories that explain them.

I haven't seen or read much of his work, but I suspect that he has learned epistemology, at least enough to get the difference.

   

: Amo  Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:27:42
Of course not. God does not lie.

Nor does He need to create fairy tales to express truth.

Evolution, Not.

Genetics, we are far from precisely understanding

: Texas Conservative  Mon Nov 25, 2019 - 14:45:26
I don't think you know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to what engineers learn about science.

Since evolution is a very loaded word

it is very easy to know that unless you are being precise about how you use that term, it is not a fact.

And some of these theories might make a lot of sense to you because you don't get enough application of mathematics to know that some of these theories are a stretch.

: Amo  Sat Nov 30, 2019 - 10:17:00
never mind.

: The Barbarian  Tue Nov 26, 2019 - 12:46:52
The state of Texas thought otherwise when they certified me as a Safety Engineer, as did the CSP board when they certified me.   I tutored a lot of young engineering students in physics, and the salient difference in the courses for engineers was that they didn't have to derive the equations for most problems.

It's very precisely defined in science.   It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   Or somewhat less precisely "descent with modification", which was Darwin's term.

As science defines it, it's an observed fact.  A lot of people confuse evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

In science, a "theory" is an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.    Non-scientists tend to confuse "theory" with "hypothesis."   I think your sentence would make more sense if you used "hypothesis."

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/


You've apparently had some exposure to population genetics, which is the mathematical treatment of evolutionary processes.  Which of the standard methods do you think is faulty, and what is your evidence for your conclusion?

: Texas Conservative  Tue Dec 03, 2019 - 08:42:28And some of these theories might make a lot of sense to you because you don't get enough application of mathematics to know that some of these theories are a stretch.

You can also re-arrange how you word things in order to win an argument, but I see through it.

: Alan  Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 21:42:51

What the... ::headscratch::  That's pretty much incoherent babbling and a stretch I might add, even for you.

: The Barbarian  Fri Dec 06, 2019 - 17:51:40
Maybe Amo could answer my question.   Population genetics is the mathematical treatment of evolution.    Could you show where the math is incorrect?

: Amo  Sat Dec 07, 2019 - 09:50:25
No doubt the math is correct. It would be the assumptions or faulty premise attached to math, that would be incorrect.

Change does not equal evolution

nor does or would observed evolution equal random chance directed evolution being the mechanism of our existence.

: The Barbarian  Sat Dec 07, 2019 - 12:47:42
Feel free to explain those.   Show us the faulty mathematical assumptions of whatever equations of population genetics you think are wrong.

Actually, that's precisely what the word means in English.    It dates back to the 1600s being a Latin derivative from evolutionem.    The concept is one of change over time.   In biology, evolution is a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."   Darwin preferred "descent with modification."

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.    Perhaps if you knew what evolution is, you'd be more effective fighting it.

: Amo  Sat Dec 07, 2019 - 18:34:51
Says the proponent of the ever evolving theory of evolution.

I didn't say mathematical equations were wrong, in fact I said the opposite, that they were probably correct. So why did you ask me to point out that which I never claimed? The fact that genetic change can be mathematically calculated does not prove evolution as the mechanism of our existence.

Creationists and evolutionists allow for and agree that change does take place.

They differ upon it being the mechanism of our existence, and to what degree change has taken place throughout history, or can take place.

As already stated, the math is probably correct since the calculations are observable and can be checked and verified. It is the assumptions and conclusions of evolutionists concerning such that cannot be.

Like the ever-evolving theory of gravitation.   Science always refines theories as it goes.   Probably seems like cheating to YE creationists who are locked into their new doctrines, regardless of the facts.   The key is that the four points Darwin showed, remain valid today as they did over a hundred years ago.

Some scientist said it was the "mechanism of our existence?"   I don't think so.  As you learned, it's just a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Most creationist organization now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve.  (some go even further)  But they don't want to call it evolution.

If YE creationists just retreat a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

Check out the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation.  What do you see wrong, there?   If you can figure that out, we'll go on to something a little more technical.

You will take the sum one way, and I will take it another. So be it.

: The Barbarian  Sun Dec 08, 2019 - 15:12:35
As usual, creationists don't want to get into the particulars, especially the math.   

The cool thing about math is that it is what it is;  that's why YE creationists avoid it.

: The Barbarian  Sun Dec 08, 2019 - 15:25:59
Let's go on to a favorite YE subject, "information."     The way scientists determine information in a population is the same way it's determined in other things, such as messages via electronic media.     The formula for finding the information of any particular gene (in this case with two alleles) is relatively simple:

Information is:   (http://crackingthenutshell.org/wp-content/uploads/file/shannons-formula-small.jpg)
Where m is information, and p_(x) is the frequency of allele x in the population.   If you take the frequency of each, times the log of the frequency of each, and sum them all up, the negative value of that number is the information for that gene in the population.

If there's only one allele for a particular gene then the information is 0.   That is, knowing what the allele for that organism is, tells you exactly nothing; you already know what it will be, before checking.    If there are two alleles, each 0.5 in frequency, then the information is about 0.3.   If there are three alleles, then the information will be about 0.48.    As you see, the more alleles, the more information you'll get by checking any particular organism, because the uncertainty of the allele is greater if there are more possibilities.

Questions?

: Amo  Sun Dec 08, 2019 - 18:35:54
Where did the information come from?

Measuring info does not explain where it came from, or who, what, why, and when, it came about and continually increased according to your pet theory in any case.

Do you claim information evolved as well? Such would only greatly add to the statistical probability nightmare evolution already has.

Information is not a plus for the theory of evolution

Of course your not a real evolutionist, you believe God is in the mix somewhere,

no doubt He supplied the information. Is that correct?

: 4WD  Sat Dec 14, 2019 - 17:43:11
That is either a spoof on the world wide flood or a most ignorant explanation of continental movement, mountain formation and plate tectonics that one could imagine.

: The Barbarian  Sun Dec 15, 2019 - 08:41:48
Hilariously wrong.   How do hard rock layers bend  over a few month's time?    Such bending requires many years of gradual deformation.   Which is only one goof this guy committed. 

Far as I can see, he just lied about dinosaur fossils in the same strata a marine fossils.   

Dinosaur Fossils Found in Marine Rocks...Again

Another spectacular dinosaur fossil discovery baffled paleontologists who deny the historical accuracy of the book of Genesis. New Scientist recently reported the identification of a T. rex-like dinosaur from Upper Cretaceous system rocks in North Africa.1 What confounded the scientists were the phosphate-rich rocks in which the bones were found—rocks indicative of deposition in an open ocean.

The new species was dubbed Chenanisaurus barbaricus by its discoverer Nick Longrich of the University of Bath, UK.1 He identified the dinosaur from a jaw bone fragment found in the mines at Sidi Chennane, Morocco. He and his colleagues from Morocco, France, and Spain concluded the dinosaur was an Abelisaur—a type of theropod similar to the Tyrannosarus rex. Longrich determined that its teeth were worn from a life spent biting into bone, which suggests this dinosaur was a predatory meat-eater.

He added, "This find is unusual because it's a dinosaur from marine rocks—it's a bit like hunting for fossil whales and finding a fossil lion. It's an incredibly rare find—almost like winning the lottery."

But the discovery of a dinosaur in marine rocks should be no surprise to Longrich and his colleagues, as a group of paleontologists had concluded earlier that nearly all Cretaceous dinosaurs across Europe were buried in marine rocks.2

Three become one

Two fish and a pterosaur locked in a fatal struggle

......................................

Puzzles over fossilisation and rock formation

It is the death, and ultimately the exquisite preservation, of the Aspidorhynchus that becomes problematic for secular long-age geology. It is the death, and ultimately the exquisite preservation, of the Aspidorhynchus that becomes problematic for secular long-age geology. This is because long-age geologists do not agree on how the limestone, or the fossils it contains, were formed. While quite a number of the fossils found in the Solnhofen limestone have been documented in Creation magazine2 and secular publications before, a recent secular journal article highlights that, "In contrast to the well-studied wealth of fossils, little is known about the origin and diagenesis3 of the host rock ... . Publications dealing with the sedimentary matrix, the depositional system and the diagenesis of plattenkalk4 are scarce and, to date, no satisfactory model is available to explain the depositional system or the diagenesis of plattenkalk series in general and of the Solnhofen occurrences in particular".5 Secular long-age geologists will continue to struggle to explain the depositional system, or to create a satisfactory model for the limestone formation, as long as they persist in deliberately ignoring the biblical world-wide Flood and mingle together the clearly opposed ideology of millions of years with the extraordinary nature of the fossils found within it which require rapid deposition...........................................

Dinosaurs in Marine Sediments: A Worldwide Phenomenon

For many years, paleontologists have known of marine fossils within various dinosaur-bearing rock units in the American West. These occurrences are largely ignored by mainstream scientists who deny that dinosaurs were buried in the global and recent Flood, as described in Genesis.

The Hell Creek Formation in eastern Montana has yielded many T. rex specimens, including well-documented dinosaur soft-tissue fossils. Surprisingly, in two volumes of papers published specifically on the Hell Creek discoveries, little is mentioned of the five species of shark and 14 species of fish fossils that are indicative of marine influence.1,2 Secular scientists either ignore these findings or dismiss them as all freshwater sharks and freshwater fish, in spite of the more likely conclusion that they represent marine organisms.

Other authors have studied the fauna of the Hell Creek Formation since the 1950s and found ample evidence of a mixture of marine and non-marine fossils.3,4 As Joseph Hartman and James Kirkland stated, "Although previously reported, knowledge of the continuation of marine conditions above the Fox Hills Formation [in the Hell Creek Formation] is not well or widely known."1

It is now becoming obvious that the mixing of terrestrial and marine environments is not a rare occurrence in the rock record. Recent discoveries in Morocco and Europe have shown that most dinosaurs are found with marine fossils or buried in marine sediments.

Nizar Ibrahim et al. reported that sharks, sawfish, ray-finned fishes, and coelocanths were found in the same rock layers as a Spinosaurus dinosaur in Morocco.5 How can this be? Today's coelocanths live about 500 feet below the ocean surface and not in freshwater rivers as many paleontologists have proposed. They dismiss the blatant physiological evidence from living specimens and insist that ancient coelocanths must have lived in fresh water simply because they are found in strata with dinosaurs. Where is the logic in this conclusion?

Zoltan Csiki-Sava and his colleagues surveyed all the recent research on dinosaur occurrences in Europe within the six accepted stages of the Late Cretaceous system. The team reported that "although isolated occurrences of continental [terrestrial] vertebrate fossils were occasionally reported from the Cenomanian to lower Santonian [lower four Upper Cretaceous stages] of Europe, these were mainly from marginal marine deposits."6 And the vast majority of these dinosaur occurrences were even found in open marine chalk and limestone deposits mixed with marine invertebrates.

Their survey of the upper two stages of the Cretaceous also showed nearly all dinosaur fossils were located in marine rocks. Here, too, the paleontologists reported numerous discoveries of dinosaur remains in open marine chalk beds that are difficult to explain in a uniformitarian context. "Although these are isolated skeletal elements [individual bones] that washed out to sea, they are remarkably common and have been reported in surprisingly large numbers since the early discoveries."6

Dinosaur fossils found in rock strata with marine fossils are commonplace, not the exception. The mounting empirical evidence cannot be ignored or simply explained away as a rare occurrence. The fossil evidence supports a catastrophic and global flood that mixed the marine realm with the terrestrial realm as tsunami-like waves spread ocean fauna and sediments across the continents. Genesis 7 and 8 describe this process better than any secular scientist could imagine.

Disharmonious Fossils

Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, "All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place."1 Dawkins's statement is emphatic and confident. It makes for a good quotation. However, Dawkins is wrong. Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.

Evolutionists have a lot of problems with the fossil record. One of these problems comes from plants. The evolutionary paradigm suggests that angiosperms (flowering plants) evolved around 120 million years ago. While flowers are too delicate to easily fossilize, the pollen they produce is not.

Pollen fossils are found periodically, including a recent find in Switzerland. Researchers from the University of Zurich studied six types of pollen fossils carefully and claimed they were 240 million years old. The study, published in 2013, proclaimed, "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."2 However, because this would make fossilized angiosperm pollen twice as old as known angiosperm plant fossils, the very next sentence claimed that they had to be only similar to angiosperm pollen, not the same. Yet the study's authors had just admitted that the fossils had all the features of angiosperm pollen. Their dogma appears to be interfering with their science.

POLLEN FOSSILS ARE NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM IN THE FOSSIL RECORD THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST RESOLVE.

Pollen fossils are not the only problem in the fossil record that evolutionists must resolve. In 2012, researchers announced the discovery of two Sinocalliopteryx skeletons with meals preserved in their stomachs.3 Sinocalliopteryx was a mid-sized theropod dinosaur. It supposedly lived around 124 million years ago. Yet these skeletons were found with the undigested remains of modern-looking birds called Confuciusornis in their stomachs. This pigeon-sized bird was very similar to modern birds, with smaller forearms and claws on the wings being the major differences. Yet this largely modern-looking bird was found inside a dinosaur fossil over 100 million years old. An essentially modern bird should not have been found there, according to the evolutionary timeline.

A second such example was published in 2005. A large opossum-sized creature called Repenomamus (a mammal) was discovered in China with a juvenile Psittacosaurus (a dinosaur) undigested in its stomach. This example was upsetting for evolutionists since they had previously presumed that the "early" mammals had been small and herbivorous. The study indirectly admitted this in the abstract: "Our discoveries constitute the first direct evidence that some triconodont mammals were carnivorous and fed on small vertebrates, including young dinosaurs, and also show that Mesozoic mammals had a much greater range of body sizes than previously known."4 In other words, mammals weren't just small and herbivorous as evolutionists had predicted they were. These fossils are proof of that.

Evolutionists struggle with other fossils as well. A study from North Carolina State University in January of 2005 announced that a fossil specimen from Antarctica had been identified as a duck, flipping the evolutionary script. Ducks, some argued, were not supposed to have diverged from their ancestral forms until after the Cretaceous period. Yet this fossil was dated to the late Cretaceous period approximately 70 million years ago, according to evolutionists. The fossil caused the study's authors to speculate that "at least duck, chicken and ratite bird relatives were coextant with non-avian dinosaurs."5 These evolutionists were being quite honest. Modern birds thus existed with the dinosaurs they are supposed to have evolved from. This is a big problem and not harmonious with the evolutionary worldview. Predictably, it provoked an angry response.

No evolutionist disputed the dating of the fossil. However, this did not prevent them from challenging the veracity of the identification of the fossil as a duck. A respected paleornithologist, Professor Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, publicly proclaimed he did not believe it was a duck. "This is basically an unidentifiable bundle of bones. . . . This is a well-known specimen that has been kicking around since 1992, and it was originally described as belonging to an extinct group. And now all of a sudden it's a modern duck,"6 Dr. Feduccia told BBC News when the study was released to the public. Undaunted, the study's lead author, Dr. Julia Clark, then of North Carolina State University and a Yale graduate, doubled down on the findings, telling BBC, "Now we have a fossil which indicates that at least part of the diversification of living birds had begun before the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs."7 Her point was that living bird kinds had existed alongside dinosaurs, just as creationists would predict.

A recent study published in Nature Communications confirms this problem for evolutionists. The study examined the fossil of a recently hatched bird found in Europe. Classed as an unknown species of Enantiornithes, the fossil was dated to be around 127 million years old.8 Closer examination of the study revealed some very interesting details. The structure of the bones was such that it is highly unlikely it could have flown upon hatching. The wings were incomplete, so it is impossible to tell if this bird had claws on its wings. Even if it did, some modern birds also have claws on their wings, though most of them are flightless. Further, even using sophisticated scanning methods, no teeth were revealed. Since living birds lack teeth, this would seem to indicate that this chick was like the kinds of birds we see today. Lest evolutionists challenge this conclusion by pointing out that tooth development could have occurred post hatching, another independent study found that chickens contain the genetic information for teeth. However, while turning on that genetic information for teeth development is a fatal mutation, teeth develop in the embryo, prior to the chick hatching out of its shell.9 If the fossil Enantiornithes chick was going to develop teeth, it would have done so prior to hatching.

The implications of the Enantiornithes chick fossil are significant. It has all the features of a modern bird. It was a largely helpless chick, just like a modern bird. It was flightless at hatching and lacked teeth. Yet evolutionists assigned it a date in the 120 million years range. This raises the significant question of how a modern-looking bird could have coexisted with dinosaurs in the evolutionary paradigm. It is not harmonious with the expected evolutionary fossil record.

FOSSIL FORMATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE LEND CREDENCE TO THE LACK OF HARMONY IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

Fossil formations across the globe lend credence to the lack of harmony in the fossil record. The Thomas Fork Formation in Wyoming contains fossil snails, fish scales, turtle carapaces, reptile bones, and dinosaur eggshells, which should not all be found together.10 The Guimarota coal mine in Portugal revealed Archaeopteryx like teeth, Multituberculata, which are mammals similar to marsupials, and dinosaur teeth before the mine flooded.11 Fossil bird teeth, fossil dinosaur teeth, and mammals all in the same place is indicative that they lived together by evolutionists' own logic.

There are other such fossil-rich formations as well. The Owl Creek Formation in Mississippi contains Triceratops kind teeth and marine ammonite fossils.12 Egg Mountain in Montana contains fossilized Maiasaurus bones along with their eggs in what are claimed to be nests.13 However, it also contains Multituberculata (mammal) fossils. The Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah contains fossils of dinosaurs, sharks, and lungfish.14 Of course, sharks live in the water, but dinosaurs live on land. The two should not be fossilized together if the fossils in this rock unit represented a buried biological community in its environment as is commonly supposed.

THE EVOLUTIONARY STORY IS LIKE ELASTIC: IT IS CONSTANTLY STRETCHED TO FIT NEW FINDS.

The above examples are by no means an exhaustive list of the disharmony that exists in the fossil record. Examining every bonebed and graveyard and producing the examples of disharmony that exist within the geologic record would take more space than is available for this article. Yet in each case examined here, with the exception of the most recent Enantiornithes discovery, evolutionists have either ignored the issue or simply adapted their timelines. The evolutionary story is like elastic: it is constantly stretched to fit new finds.

The major problem with evolutionists' handling of the fossil record comes from their worldview. Instead of questioning their belief when a fossil is found in an unexpected place, they impose their worldview on the record and then make adjustments to their "just-so stories." Thus, no piece of fossil evidence, no matter how damaging to the evolutionary tale cannot be explained. This, however, is not science, but storytelling by scientists who weren't there in the past to observe what happened and how it happened. All they have is the observable evidence in the present from which to infer what might have happened in the past based on their insistence on purely natural processes. True science makes testable predictions, part of the scientific method referred to as falsifiability. In order for something to be scientific, there has to be a way for it to be disproved. If the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record can accommodate any discovery, then their evolutionary fable is never falsifiable.

ULTIMATELY, THE BATTLE IS NOT SIMPLY OVER THE FOSSILS. EVIDENCE, WHILE VALUABLE, IS NOT THE ULTIMATE ARBITRATOR.

Ultimately, the battle is not simply over the fossils. Evidence, while valuable, is not the ultimate arbitrator. Evolutionists will only change their minds when they change their worldview. Evolutionists use their worldview to interpret the fossil record to support their worldview in a dizzying round of circular reasoning. Because the past is not observable, it must be interpreted based on the scientist's worldview assumptions. So, evolutionists (either consciously or subconsciously) impose their worldview on the evidence. Thus it should surprise no one that the resulting interpretation always supports their worldview. Disharmony in the record can be shoehorned into their theory because they are not guided simply by evidence. Instead, they are guided by their worldview in interpreting the evidence. Thus their resulting stories can never be dogmatically asserted as fact.

: Amo  Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 10:44:37This is because you know exactly how a global flood would have effected all these things, right? Or to the contrary, you now exactly how deep time did such, correct? Just who or what is the benefactor of your proclaimed superior knowledge, if you don't mind my asking?

: Amo  Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 10:36:09I wonder just exactly what evolutionists think animals radiated from? What is the source of radiating evolution?

Do they think random chance radiates highly complex life forms?

Does random chance keep track of what is an asset to the development of complexity of life, so that it may repeat whatever processes brought it about again and again?

What does random chance have to do with lineages at all, let alone those lineages planning and executing the organization of cells  unto increasingly complex and incredible organ function?

This in cooperation with many others composing a single extremely complex, intricate, and purpose driven life form?

Ah yes, let's not forget the Cambrian Explosion either, where random chance got real busy in its lab and began the processes of rapid diversification.

: 4WD  Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 12:16:50
What I know is that what the video presented was absolute garbage.  You can believe what you want about the flood.  But to present the unscientific and anti-scientific crap as in the video as support for a global flood is nothing but the sheer absurdity derived in ignorance.

: The Barbarian  Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 19:15:23
Because choanoflagellate protests are so similar to choanocytes in sponges (the most primitive animals), it was hypothesized that these protists gave rise to animals. The hypothesis was tested by comparing genes of the two:

Nature volume 451, pages783–788(2008)
The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans
Nicole King, M. Jody Westbrook, Daniel Rokhsar
Abstract
Choanoflagellates are the closest known relatives of metazoans. To discover potential molecular mechanisms underlying the evolution of metazoan multicellularity, we sequenced and analysed the genome of the unicellular choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis. The genome contains approximately 9,200 intron-rich genes, including a number that encode cell adhesion and signalling protein domains that are otherwise restricted to metazoans. Here we show that the physical linkages among protein domains often differ between M. brevicollis and metazoans, suggesting that abundant domain shuffling followed the separation of the choanoflagellate and metazoan lineages. The completion of the M. brevicollis genome allows us to reconstruct with increasing resolution the genomic changes that accompanied the origin of metazoans.


As predicted, genetic data confirms the hypothesis.

As you learned, Darwin's discovery is that it doesn't happen by chance.

Luria and Delbruck got their shared Nobel for demonstrating that favorable mutations don't appear in response to need. 

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

But the smart money is on the swift; no sure thing, but they tend to survive.   That's all that's needed.

Not at first, anyway.   Sponges are not extremely complex, intricate, or purpose-driven.   But things moved on from there.   Would you like to learn about that?

You're wrong, again.   First, complex organisms, including some once thought to have first appeared in the Cambrian, were thriving long before the Cambrian.  And the rapid diversification occurred just when organisms first evolved complete exoskeletons.  Which suddenly opened up a very large number of lifestyles.   So chance again,didn't have much to do with it.

The fairy tale called creationism becomes ever increasingly unlikely every step of the way along its yellow brick road.    Those who reject the testimony of the holy scriptures in favor of creationism ignore both scripture and science.. So be it, the scriptures have predicted and addressed the same.

Psa 94:8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. 12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;

But there won't be an "wrath" about it.   How you feel about evolution will not matter to your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism or evolution, and demand that  Christians must believe it your way to be saved.

: Amo  Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 12:15:21
Of course you are preaching to the quire when you tell me that chance didn't have anything to do with it,

If you are suggesting that God was actively involved in the processes you call evolution so that they were not chance oriented, this would be acceptable.

If on the other hand you suggest He just started the process and then simply observed,

then the idea of chance accomplishing evolution is still absurd.

: The Barbarian  Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 13:26:37
Choir?  Don't think so.  Creationist often think evolution is about chance, but as you now realize, Darwin's discovery was that it's not by chance.

His activity doesn't depend on chance or necessity.   God can use either for His purposes.

You're thinking of deism.  For a Christian, even the physical forces of the universe are there because He's involved with them.

But Darwin showed it wasn't by chance.

: Alan  Tue Dec 24, 2019 - 16:18:11
Merry Christmas Amo, all the best to you and yours.  ::smile::

This remarkable record exists only because of a catastrophic underwater landslide that buried the organisms in a deluge of sediment millions of years ago. The sand was so fine it would have filled the animals' gills and the hinges of their legs, trapping and suffocating them. The high alkalinity of the oceans, combined with the utter absence of oxygen, would have held at bay the bacteria that would otherwise decompose an organism's soft and squishy parts.

: Amo  Tue Dec 24, 2019 - 11:13:57
A perfect example of where your faith really lies, in your chosen prophet Charles Darwin. Darwin is the one who has showed us it wasn't by chance according the the faith of Barb and his "Christian" evolutionist buddies.

Never mind that millions who also submit to the man Darwin's false prophecies

do believe it is according to random chance.

So be it. You continue your search and education into Darwins evolutionary tree of life,

: The Barbarian  Mon Dec 30, 2019 - 18:49:10
The beauty of science is, no faith required.   Just evidence.   In this case, evidence so compelling that many creationist organizations have conceded that natural selection is a fact.   Would you like to see that?

As you know, science deals in evidence, not prophecies.   Darwin merely showed us the facts.

You're the only one here, who seems to think so.   And seeing as you don't get how evidence works, I'm pretty sure you're not an evolutionist.

Actually, it was discovered by Linnaeus, who didn't know about evolution.   You'd be more effective against science if you knew more about it.

Do you have some sort of random Bible verse generator, or are you just flipping pages?

: Amo  Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 09:13:03
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites

The above is a list of fossil sites around the world. Not likely it actually contains all of them.  Many more are sure to be found.

Either the biblical account of the flood is true which such evidence continuously supports without end it appears, or the perfect conditions for preserving fossils occurred over and over and over again according to deep time evolution. Which is more likely? If in fact it has happened so many times over and over throughout this worlds deep time history, and we have found so very many examples already, why are there so very few if any supposed transitional fossils among the many millions we have already found?

Does this make sense? Why are so many fossils found together in fossil graveyards, that shouldn't be together according to evolution?

: The Barbarian  Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 09:40:43
You don't really understand.   The Himalaya mountains are composed of marine fossils.   Huge stretches of rock all over the world are made of fossils.  Hundreds of thousands of square miles of rock contain fossils, mostly small marine animals in silt that was gradually laid down as it is being laid down today.   So gradually that animals burrow in it, construct tunnels in which to live, and eventually die and are buried in it.

The "finds" are fossil beds that contain fossils from a critical point in life's history, showing important transitionals.   For example, until we found rock from a specific age, there were no known transitionals between land animals and whales.  Then, in Pakistan, we found coastal deposits of the right age, and the predicted transitionals were found.

The evidence is there for all to see.

As you learned, there are many, many examples of transitional fossils.   Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise lists dozens of them, as I showed you earlier.  Would you like me to show you again?

I don't know of any.   Could you show us some?

Fossil Record Doesn't Support Evolution!

When one visits the Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, one finds fossilized dinosaurs mixed with marine fossils; sea shells are the most common fossils in this huge deposit of dinosaur fossils.  The flood waters obviously covered the continents, bringing with them the marine creatures and burying them along with dinosaurs and other animals.  From all over the world, throughout the fossil record (geological column) fossilized sea creatures and found land animals are found all mixed together!........................

Furthermore, insect fossils have also been found in the same layer as the dinosaurs and sea creatures.  These insect fossils look just like our modern insects.  If evolution were true, we should find one creature somewhere changing into another in the fossil record.  Yet, what we find in the fossil record are modern looking fossils of crickets, katydids, millipedes, spiders and centipedes in the same rock layers as the dinosaurs and sea creatures.  No change!

A fossilized termite next, on display at Petrified Forest National Park, looks just like a modern termite nest.  The fossil record reveals that modern looking wood wasps, scorpion flies and mayflies flew with the flying reptiles (pterosaurs).

Even the fossilized birds found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs were the same as birds we see in today's world!  Paleontologist have dug up bones of a parrot, penguins, and owls in the dinosaur rock layers.

Perhaps the most challenging fossil phenomena for Darwinian apologists to explain are the vast graveyards of animal remains that are found throughout the world. Ongoing excavations in the Gobi Desert tell of one such sight that has become an embarrassment to evolutionists. Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct.

A massive repository of fossils is found in South Africa. We can only speculate how many creatures are contained in this graveyard. One mind-boggling analysis estimates "The Karoo formation in South Africa alone contains fossil remains of about 800 billion animals." (Milner, Richard, The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins, 1990, p. 330.) Only a catastrophe operating on the scale of the Genesis Flood would be sufficient to account for this!

Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach

In China, scientists have identified the fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur in the stomach of a mammal. Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago.

It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

In this case, the mammal was about the size of a large cat, and the victim was a very young "parrot dinosaur" that measured about 5 inches long.

A second mammal fossil found at the same site claims the distinction of being the largest early mammal ever found. It's about the size of a modern dog, a breathtaking 20 times larger than most mammals living in the early Cretaceous Period......................

Dinosaur and mammal tracks found together

..............................

With the help of famous track expert Martin Lockley, they discovered that the small slab had 70 non-overlapping tracks from eight species. It not only contained dinosaur tracks, but also mammal tracks and pterosaur traces. The nodossaur track first noticed by Stanford was the only such track, but it was accompanied by baby nodosaur tracks. The slab also had one large sauropod print, a nodosaur scale, and a coprolite. There were possible invertebrate traces, possible crocodile tracks, and unidentified tracks (figure 1).

The slab is dominated by small tracks, one type being a hypsilophodon and a series of four trackways made by crow-sized theropods. Three types of mammal tracks occur with one of the mammals making tracks in a sitting position, and one large print that surprised the paleontologists, since they have come to believe Mesozoic mammals were rat-like and unspecialized. However, more and more evidence is accumulating for sophisticated Mesozoic mammals.3 Mammal tracks are rare in the Mesozoic but a few are being found, including a recent find in Angola. There are multiple other 'mammal' tracks in the early Mesozoic, but paleontologists have attributed these to 'mammal-like reptiles' called synapsids because of their evolutionary assumptions. It is possible that they are true mammal tracks, explained away because of evolutionary bias..................................

Conclusion

This slab of dinosaur, crocodile, pterosaur, and mammal footprints provides dramatic evidence that supports the biblical account of creation and the Flood. The fact that dinosaur and mammal prints are found on the same slab goes against the evolutionary idea that mammals largely diversified after the dinosaurs. Rather it shows that mammals and dinosaurs lived at the same time. This is expected from a creation perspective because all animals were created during Creation Week and had diversified across the earth before the global Genesis Flood began. The rapid formation and preservation of the prints in days or hours is consistent with the rapid processes that occurred during the Flood. Further, the existence of footprints means that the animals were alive, suggesting that the tracks were made as the floodwaters were rising and before they covered all the earth. After that, all land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures had perished. The prints likely represent the efforts of the animals to escape the ongoing inundation of the rising waters.

"Modern" Fossils with Dinosaurs

....................................................

Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers, almost as many as the number of dinosaur species.  Also many modern bird species have been discovered buried with dinosaur remains: "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc." (Batten, Don, "Living Fossils: a powerful argument for creation," Creation 33 (2), 2011.) "This symphysis appears to represent the oldest known parrot and is, to my knowledge, the first known fossil of a 'terrestrial' modern bird group from the Cretaceous. The existence of this fossil supports the hypothesis, based on molecular divergence data that most or all of the major modern bird groups were present in the Cretaceous." (Stidham, Thomas A., Nature 396, 29-30, November 5, 1998.) Such stasis (virtually no evolutionary change in these birds for 60 million years) is hard to fathom. It is evidence that both the dinosaurs and birds lived together much more recently.

More Caverns filled with bones World-Wide
Alfrend Rehwinkle in his volume The Flood, 1951 (See Corless Handbook of Geological Enigma's Sourcebook Project 1980 p. 668-9) relates this type of phenomena is not isolated, there being documented discoveries in England, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, USA, Russia and Malta of these same deposits. For example in Greece on the Island of Cerigo, there is a place called the "Mountain of Bones" being 1 mile in circumference. In Burgundy France, is found a steep promontory 1000 feet above the valley floor. Looking skyward is a natural fissure filled to the brim with the broken remains of bears, foxes, wolves, horses, oxen and other animals. Such a deposit was surely made by waters passing over the top of the edifice, these parts settling to fill the crevasse. Similar deposits exist in the British Isles and Sicily, the latter where more than 20 tons of bones were mined out for commercial purposes. On Gibraltar, fissures in number reach over one thousand feet high, full of animal bones, and in one place, claimed human artifacts. Near Odessa, Russia, a cavern was found full of animals such as cat, hyena, horses, boars, mammoth, rhinoceros, deer and smaller animals such as rodents, hares, martens, otter, wolves and foxes all mixed together in no order. This not to mention the 4500 bone remains of bears! Upon close examination of all these deposits we find that very few complete skeletons remain, disproving these deaths being accidental. We must consider their occurrence being a direct consequence of the Flood. More evidence of high water deposition is found detailed in the fossils section in this volume.

Vertical Whale Fossil in CA
Chemical and Engineering News 54:4 Oct. 11, 1976, See Corless Handbook of Geological Enigma's Sourcebook Project 1980 p. 643 and Snelling, PhD, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 244–258, 1995.
While mining in a pit near Lompoc CA, workers uncovered an 80 foot Baleen whale entombed vertically in a pit depression structure. The fossil was found in the presence of many other marine fossils. Whale deposits in groups have been found in Oregon, Peru and recently in Norway. These mixed with various marine mammals and reptiles, each signifying a catastrophic and not a gradual end.

Its official, fossil sites have totaled more than 1 million around the world. 3 Great fossil graveyards that exist in every major continent in the world. In these graveyards vast numbers of creatures are violently mixed together. There are dinosaur graveyards in America and China with hundreds of dinosaurs mixed and buried together with clams, turtles and many other animals. Many fossil graveyards are high up in mountainous areas. In Sicily for example, four thousand feet above sea level on Mount Etna, there are two caves crammed with the bones of thousands of hippopotamus in each grave. On the island of Malta there are lions, tigers, mammoths, birds, beavers, hippopotamus, foxes and more all mixed together. One cave in Malta contains so many fossils that Malta's present size would not keep this awesome quantity fed for just one week!  In America, a death pit exists near Hollywood, with eagles, doves and approximately two hundred and fifty saber tooth tigers and fifty elephants. In Oregon there are beds with elephants, camels, cats, bison, mammoths and mastodon, whales and turtles, mice, lemurs, opossum, beaver and dozens of types of clams to name a few all in water sediment deposits.......................

Along the Arctic coast, naturalists found thousands of mastodons laying out in the tundra, in Siberia, entire islands were made of bones and carcasses of the animals and many were found intact and washed in jumbles by the millions. In Antarctica, fossil beds abound. In California, petrified fish, fossilized with mouths open, backs arched and fins spread, have been found. Many of these fish are partly on end with the body passing through two planes of rock-strata.By modern geology this would mean that the fish-tail is separated from its head by millions of years. That, of course, is not possible. There are approximately five fish per square foot over approximately four square miles. This equates to more than one billion fossilized fish! These graveyards are dramatic evidence that an era of the world ended with enormous violence world-wide in scope.  Many Geologists and Paleontologists have an innate distaste for catastrophism, and that's understandable, Catastrophists easily identify every strata of sediment with a worldwide flood, layer upon layer in the rocks. The author experienced this in college geology classes, when professors were presented with this evidence they abandoned uniformity!  See Grand Canyon and Last Mountain Standing this series. ....................................

: Amo  Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 09:54:31
https://www.discoveryworld.us/geology/fossil-record-doesnt-support-evolution/

Fossil Record Doesn't Support Evolution!

When one visits the Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, one finds fossilized dinosaurs mixed with marine fossils; sea shells are the most common fossils in this huge deposit of dinosaur fossils.  The flood waters obviously covered the continents, bringing with them the marine creatures and burying them along with dinosaurs and other animals.  From all over the world, throughout the fossil record (geological column) fossilized sea creatures and found land animals are found all mixed together!........................   

: seekingHiswisdom  Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 12:39:34
I will first note that I do not, and will not ever hold the belief of evolution. Not in the way that others on here believe it.

Second I will state that I do believe in in a world wide flood.

Always remember... no matter what it appears I am saying.... NO evolution ~ YES world wide flood.

But playing devils advocate here there are two noticeable things that jump out at me from what you posted.

There is absolutely nothing in what you have posted that would discount or deny that evolution could not have taken place in the millennia before the flood.

The next thing is that for all the listings of places world wide that talks of these build up fossil pieces, that "they" whoever "they" are list.... why do they NOT show photographs of each and every one of them but expect one to take it at face value that what "they" say is true.

Discovery of a Large Jurassic Mammal Turns Theory on its Head

Scientists have long thought that during dinosaurs' time mammals were tiny, rat-like creatures that kept a low profile in order to survive. However, a discovery in northern China of a furry aquatic creature with seal-like teeth and a flat tail like a beaver has demolished that image. This creature, that lived around 164 million years ago, weighted more than half a kilogram and was around half a meter in length. It used to swim in lakes, eating fish and lived alongside dinosaurs. This is the largest mammal from this time period discovered so far.

The Chinese archaeologists led by Qiang Ji of Nanjing University found the well-preserved fossil in the Jiulongshan Formation in Inner Mongolia. Besides the skeleton including teeth, there were also impressions of soft tissue and fur, both guard hairs and short, dense under-fur that probably kept the water from the skin.

"Based on its relatively large size, swimming body structure, and anterior molars specialized for [fish] feeding, Castorocauda was a semiacquatic carnivore, similar to the modern river otter," the team writes in the paper announcing the find in today's issue of Science.

"Its lifestyle was probably very similar to the modern-day platypus," Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, said in a statement. "It probably lived along river or lake banks. It doggy-paddled around, ate aquatic animals and insects, and burrowed tunnels for its nest."

According to Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, who was not part of Luo's team, this discovery pushes back the date of the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years. "We stand at the threshold of a dramatic change in the picture of mammalian evolutionary history," he said. "The potential of fossil-rich deposits like the Jehol group in Liaoning Province in China or the Jiulongshan Formation in Inner Mongolia is only just beginning to be exploited."

Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago. This is the first evidence of much earlier semi-aquatic mammals and indicates a greater diversification than previously thought.

Although the animal looks in many ways like a beaver, it is not actually related to modern beavers. Nonetheless, scientists named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis - Castoro from the Latin for beaver, cauda for tail, lutra for river otter and similis meaning similar.

Mammals began their takeover long before the death of the dinosaurs

It's a familiar story—the mighty dinosaurs dominated their prehistoric environment, while tiny mammals took a backseat, until the dinosaurs (besides birds) went extinct 66 million years ago, allowing mammals to shine. Just one problem—it's not true. A new article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B reports that mammals actually began their massive diversification ten to twenty million years before the extinction that ended the age of the dinosaurs.
.........................

The old hypothesis hinged upon the fact that many of the early mammal fossils that had been found were from small, insect-eating animals—there didn't seem to be much in the way of diversity. But over the years, more and more early mammals have been found, including some hoofed animal predecessors the size of dogs. The animals' teeth were varied, too. Grossnickle, along with his co-author Elis Newham at the University of Southampton, analyzed the molars of hundreds of early mammal specimens in museum fossil collections. They found that the mammals that lived during the years leading up to the dinosaurs' demise had widely varied tooth shapes, meaning that they had widely varied diets. These different diets proved key to an unexpected finding regarding mammal species going extinct along with the dinosaurs.

Not only did mammals begin diversifying earlier than previously expected, but the mass extinction wasn't the perfect opportunity for mammal evolution that it's traditionally been painted as. Early mammals were hit by a selective extinction at the same time the dinosaurs died out—generalists that could live off of a wide variety of foods seemed more apt to survive, but many mammals with specialized diets went extinct.

The scientists involved with the study were surprised to see that mammals were initially negatively impacted by the mass extinction event. "I fully expected to see more diverse mammals immediately after the extinction," said Grossnickle. "I wasn't expecting to see any sort of drop. It didn't match the traditional view that after the extinction, mammals hit the ground running. It's part of the reason why I went back to study it further—it seemed wrong."

Unprecedented wave of large-mammal extinctions linked to ancient humans

Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and other recent human relatives may have begun hunting large mammal species down to size — by way of extinction — at least 90,000 years earlier than previously thought, says a new study published in the journal Science..................................................

First 'winged' mammals flew over dinosaurs

Fossils of the first "winged" mammals, from 160 million years ago, have been discovered in China.
They reveal that mammal ancestors evolved to glide between trees in a similar way to some mammals today.This adds to evidence that mammals were more diverse during the age of dinosaurs than previously realised..................................

: Amo  Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 10:05:29
https://creation.com/dinosaur-and-mammal-tracks-found-together

: The Barbarian  Sun Jan 05, 2020 - 19:09:11
Actually, that's not a surprise at all. mammals preceded dinosaurs in the fossil record, and overlapped with them for millions of years.  And in that time, there were also pterosaurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

Why would you think that was a surprise?

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

...................................

A constantly changing story

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

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

Lots of inconvenient fossils

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

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

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

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

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

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

CMI's Calvin Smith wrote:

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

Tiktaalik! 'You gotta be kidding'

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Amo  Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:55:39
Why would you ask why I would be surprised by such. You know that I am not as a creationist. Creationists are not the ones who are surprised. It is the articles from your fellow evolutionists that suggest surprise

More Proof That Dinosaurs Lived with 'Later' Creatures

According to evolution, dinosaurs lived during an age when birds and non-reptile land creatures were either present in just a few "primitive" forms or not at all. But a recent National Geographic online interview offered a summary of fossil discoveries made in a dinosaur-bearing deposit in Madagascar. And like most dinosaur deposits—but unlike museum dinosaur displays—it was richly endowed with plenty of non-dinosaur fossils.

The issue of whether dinosaurs co-existed with a wide range of other creatures is critical, because evolution's version of dinosaur history directly contradicts the history attested in the Bible. According to evolution, dinosaurs dominated certain "times" millions of years ago. But according to Scripture, all animals and plants had been created by the end of the sixth day. If the former is true, then dinosaur fossils should primarily be found by themselves. But if the latter is true, then dinosaur remains should be found mixed with those of birds, mammals, and all kinds of plants.

Medical doctor Carl Werner undertook an extensive investigation of evolution. His results are published in a series of books and videos. He explained his prediction about dinosaur strata and fossils in the video titled Evolution: the Grand Experiment, Episode 2, Living Fossils:

If evolution was not true, and if animals did not change over time, I should be able to find modern-appearing plants and modern-appearing animals in the dinosaur rock layers. And this is in fact what I found.1

But to find them, he had to go behind the museum display scenes that omit them and into the scientific literature. In an interview with Creation magazine, Werner said that dinosaur rocks contained "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today" and "cartilaginous fish...boney fish...and jawless fish," as well as "modern-looking frogs and salamanders." Mixed in among dinosaurs are "all of today's reptile groups" and "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."2

David Krause of Stony Brook University in New York has been digging fossils in a Cretaceous deposit in Madagascar for over ten years. The interview with National Geographic highlighted his "most interesting and important finds," and the array of remains he's discovered lines up with what Werner found—plenty of non-dinosaur kinds located in dinosaur rock layers.3

Along with dinosaurs, the finds included an extinct bird named Rahonavis, a short-bodied crocodile-like creature called Simosuchus, and a toad that Krause and his colleagues named Beelzebufo. Other than having been about twice the size of today's largest toads at 10 pounds, it was just like a modern toad.

None of these showed any hint of transitioning from one form to another, as Darwinism predicts, but instead each was found fully formed. And who knows what other birds, amphibians, and possibly mammals were discovered by the team in Madagascar that have yet to be publicized.

Dinosaur rock layers contain all kinds of creatures from all kinds of habitats, including those of both land and sea.4 Evolution can provide no explanation for this circumstance. It is completely to be expected, however, if these creatures were created all together and then deposited in catastrophic mudflows powered by the year-long, world-destroying Flood and its residual effects.

In the midst of a remodelling project in our home, I found myself searching through my tools for some item to accomplish the task before me. As I searched, I found some tools which would be of no use at all, some which I might be able to use, and still others which would likely do the trick. I noted and found it interesting that in an earlier phase of the project (the deconstruction phase) I had a very different prioritisation of the very same tools. Mr Chapman and Mr Johnston take exception with my classification and prioritisation of 'transitional forms' arguments merely because they are focused on very different tasks than I. Both Mr Chapman and Mr Johnston seem intent on attacking (deconstructing) evolutionary theory, whereas I am interested in building a creation model. As a result we use the tools of the 'traditional transitional forms' argument differently.

Allow me first to rephrase their concerns in the language of my article. Mr Chapman feels that the 'rarity of stratomorphic intermediates' argument has historically been, and continues to be, a substantial challenge to current evolutionary theory. Mr Johnston feels that both the 'chimeromorphic nature of morphological traits and features' and the 'rarity of stratomorphic intermediates' are substantial challenges to current evolutionary theory. I deny neither of these claims, and for those who are focused on merely attacking evolutionary theory these are reasonable tools.

In contrast, those who are involved in theory construction rather than theory deconstruction will utilise the available tools of argument very differently than Messrs Chapman and Johnston. Evolutionary theorists, for example, would point to the very existence of stratomorphic intermediates (rare or common; chimeromorphic or not) as evidence for their theory. In fact, stratomorphic intermediates would be understood to be powerful evidence because alternate theories (for example, creation theory) do not predict them. More specifically, as explained in my article, traditional evolutionary theory has predicted at least four different types of stratomorphic intermediates (those between species, those of species, those of higher taxa, and series of them). Examples of three of these categories of evidence have been found. This has been heralded as powerful evidence of macroevolutionary theory and should be considered powerful evidence of macroevolutionary theory. This is true regardless of how difficult the rarity and chimeromorphic nature of those stratomorphic intermediates might be for macroevolutionary theory to explain. To an objective macro- evolutionist the existence of the stratomorphic intermediates would be powerful evidence that macroevolution actually occurred, and the rarity and chimeromorphic nature of those stratomorphic intermediates might be evidence that a better mechanism of macroevolution is still needed. This is more or less the position of Michael Denton, for example, and not really very far from the current position of even Stephen Jay Gould.

Young-age creation theorists, in contrast, will use the tools of the 'traditional transitional forms' argument differently from both the anti- evolutionists and the evolutionists. I suggested in my article that, as positive theory-builders, we should begin by explaining the major features of the fossil record. In the provisional list in the article I included both the 'chimeromorphic nature of morphological traits and features' and the 'rarity of stratomorphic intermediates'. I believe that not only are these substantial challenges for modern macroevolutionary theory (as do Messrs Chapman and Johnston), but that they are major features of the fossil record of the Earth. As such, it is incumbent upon us as creation theorists to explain why it is that these features characterise the Earth's fossil record.

Messrs Chapman and Johnston wish to use these two arguments to 'bash' evolution. My article argued

(1) that we should not focus on
showing that there are no stratomorphic intermediates; and

2) rather than using them as a weapon, we should focus on using these two particular arguments as a pry-bar to open the door to a creationist understanding of the fossil record, and as a hammer to building a creation model.

Dr Kurt P. Wise,
Dayton, Tennessee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

: The Barbarian  Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 06:49:28
Don't see how. It's been known for nearly a hundred years that primitive mammaliforms preceded dinosaurs.   You've been misled once again...

Discovery of new prehistoric mosquitoes reveal these blood-suckers have changed little in 46 million years

................................................

The newly named Eocene mosquitoes—Culiseta kishenehn and Culiseta lemniscata—represent just two of perhaps hundreds of mosquito species that have come and gone in the last 45-million years, Greenwalt explains. "The consensus is that one species of insect might be able to make it through one million or two million years, and in the extreme maybe 10 million years. So it is amazing how similar the insects flying around today are to the ones that were flying around 50 million years ago. We can find morphological differences that distinguish specific species, but overall they are extremely similar."

Equally remarkable is the level of preservation in the Montana fossils, which contain details as intricate as wing veins, sexual organs, scales and hair-like structures on the mosquito wings. "To think that something as fragile as a mosquito would die and settle to the bottom of a body of water and be preserved in rock is extraordinary. It must have been shallow, very calm water with an extremely thin annual sediment layer—something only a few hundred microns thick," Greenwalt says. The Montana climate was much warmer then—wet subtropical to tropical, he adds..........................

Darwinists Use Fossils as Props for Propaganda

With one-party rule in any institution, everything supports the party line. Open debate would be healthy for paleontology.

In the heyday of communist Russia, the "mainstream media" of the day (Pravda, Izvestia), towed the party line as it presented the "news" to the people. It wasn't news, of course; it was party propaganda, sanitized of any serious investigative reporting. Lenin had destroyed the free press and replaced it with instruments of his own messaging. Consequently, every news development could be framed in terms of Marxist-Leninist doctrine: dialectical materialism, the class struggle, the revolution of the oppressed proletarians against the bourgeoisie, and the triumphal progress of world communism [for more on Marx, see Prager U]. This was absolutely necessary to the dictators, because a free press would undermine their regimes. If starving North Koreans could see how prosperous Americans are, they might begin to doubt what Kim's state-controlled press tells them, that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the most successful and free society in history.

A similar situation exists within Big Science (BS), which has not only embraced the Darwinian Revolution unquestioningly, but has rejected anything that does not promote scientific materialism and Darwinian evolution. Obviously, creation and intelligent design never get a hearing, as one could imagine under Darwin Party control, but neither do criticisms of Darwin—the Dear Leader of BS. He must be presented to the public continually like the huge posters of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim have been used in totalitarian dictatorships of the past and present, staring down in every public venue to keep the populace aware of who is in charge. BS uses BM (Big Media) as its propaganda arm: it is the Pravda of BS, and even more powerful than its communist predecessor, because it has truly achieved global revolution. The Darwin Party Comintern punishes reporters in Turkey [17 Sept 2018 commentary], Louisiana or Uganda—wherever dissidents might emerge. BS uses BM to achieve BB (Big Brother).

Ideology Before Interpretation, and Enforcement

Readers of secular science media need to realize that every fossil bone, every tooth, and every footprint is being interpreted in terms of millions of years of death and struggle in the upward march of progress from bacteria to man. Free-thinking reporters never stray, because they would quickly be shamed out of their jobs. Readers of BM, whether at Science Daily or at national park signs, never hear that there are other ways to interpret fossils. Even when Dr Mary Schweitzer found soft, stretchy tissues in dinosaur bones, eliciting gasps from hosts on 60 Minutes, nobody was permitted to question the 80-million-year age of the fossils or the reality of dinosaur evolution. Only creationists pointed to the obvious contradiction with the party line, but they have to operate in the gulags of BS, or outside the institutions of power, as did members of unregistered churches or dissident groups in communist countries. The situation is so bad that even anti-creationist scientists who have doubts about Darwin's mechanism have to meet in semi-secret groups and publish with caution (example: The Third Way of Evolution). They feel obligated to make it clear up front that they are not one of "them" (the creationist counter-revolutionaries).

Plagiarism for the Good of the Party

Lenin and Mao tolerated limited capitalism in times of crisis, when communism was failing, as it inevitably did. In a similar way, BS tolerates some forms of intelligent design: e.g., SETI. But as Richard Dawkins asserted in the movie Expelled, if space aliens were to send an intelligent message to us (the I in SETI), the aliens would have had to initially evolve by Darwinian evolution. As with communism, Party doctrine serves as a covering model that handles all apparent exceptions. Undoubtedly Pravda reported many actual facts that were uncontroversial. The point is that its raison d'être was to advance world communism. Facts, half truths and big lies were all acceptable as long as they served that over-arching goal.

Note: As we read BS paleontology news, keep your eye on the ball: the Darwin Party Line is naturalistic origin of species by means of natural selection resulting in molecules-to-man common ancestry over millions of years. Don't be distracted by ancillary details or jargon; they don't matter. Creationists might agree on many facts in BM articles, such as classification and scientific names. They might find the writing polished and engaging. The only non-negotiable aspect of secular BS and BM is to advance the Party line in some way, even if to just appear scholarly and nice.

The Party Play and the Fossil Props

What can you tell from a bone? You dig up a fossil. There's no date on it. All you really know is that a creature once alive has died some time in the past. You can tell some things from experiments on living animals. If a dinosaur has its neck arched back (the common "dinosaur death pose", 23 Nov 2011), it must have suffocated in water, because drowning chickens look like that. If it is intact (i.e., articulated), it might have been buried quickly without being transported. Such details are OK to state, as long as you reassure the Party that it happened over 65 million years ago, and probably happened in a localized flood, not a global flood like creationists teach. A secular scientist or reporter can even express shock and surprise at an anomalous fossil, like a "living fossil" or out-of-place fossil. The Party supplies BM with ready-made explanatory strategies, such as "this species must have evolved 60 million years earlier than thought" (thought by whom, you ask? by the Party loyalists, the only ones holding the imprimatur). The important thing is never to violate the party line: millions of years and Darwinian evolution. Let's watch how BS and BM treat fossils as props for their propaganda.

Newly discovered dinosaurs fill in evolutionary gap spanning 70 million years (Phys.org). The top illustration looks like drawings of ducks and chickens covered in gaudy feathers, but the writer insists these are dinosaurs. Writer Katie Willis (U of Alberta) tells her comrades that these are missing links that had been reported in Current Biology. Were any feathers found on them, as the picture implies? No; just imaginary feathers. Looks like a Big Lie just came to Darwin's rescue. (For more problems with these fossils, see the 28 Aug 2018 entry.)

Mammal forerunner that reproduced like a reptile sheds light on brain evolution (University of Texas at Austin). We are told by these Darwin loyalists that a Jurassic fossil represents a "mammal ancestor" even though there were mammals before the Jurassic, and this animal "probably had hair." The only observational evidence presented is an adult with the bones of 38 babies, assumed to be its clutch or litter. From that, an evolutionary tale is woven: "The discovery that Kayentatherium had a tiny brain and many babies, despite otherwise having much in common with mammals, suggests that a critical step in the evolution of mammals was trading big litters for big brains, and that this step happened later in mammalian evolution."

Note: The paper in Nature on which this press release is based says very little about evolution. Authors Hoffman and Rowe only mention it twice, and never explain why a mammal with a smaller litter should be considered more fit than this animal with a large litter (if that is what the fossil cache represents). Mammals exhibit a lot of variation in litter sizes and brain sizes. So what? The authors speculate that the animal "may reflect a transitional phase" in limb sizes, but they don't say what about brain sizes require smaller litters. They say the fossil is "consistent with a scenario" (a just-so story) where larger brains "drove later changes to mammalian reproduction," but the connection is foggy, and association does not prove causation anyway. Did this animal somehow "want" to evolve a bigger brain? Did Darwin tell it, "The only way I can give you a larger brain is for you to give up large litters"? If this were a law of nature, large families would have no geniuses, and pandas would be the brainiest, fittest animals on the planet, instead of being on the verge of extinction. None of this makes any Darwinian sense. It reinforces the observation that the Darwin Party can use any fossil as a prop, just like the editors of Pravda could twist any news item into support for communism. In dictatorships without free and open debate about evidence, ideology drives the interpretation, and nobody gets to hear hard questions asked by dissidents.

Tiny fossils reveal how shrinking was essential for successful evolution (University of Birmingham). The previous story argued that evolution makes things bigger. Here comes a story that evolution makes things smaller. "A new study published today in Nature shows that getting smaller was a key factor contributing to the exceptional evolution of mammals over the last 200 million years." What a convenient theory! It simultaneously explains why "exceptional evolution" in dinosaurs made them gigantic, but the same force made mammals smaller. They even say this openly:

"The origin of modern mammals can be traced back more than 200 million years to the age of dinosaurs. But while dinosaurs evolved to become some of the largest land animals, for the following 150 million years, the ancestors of all modern mammals pursued an entirely different strategy: getting very small."

Did the mammals "pursue" this "strategy" by design, or did the Stuff Happens Law direct it? Such a theory could explain anything, even opposites (as here), depending on what "scenario" a BM reporter wants to tell about that day. In this scenario, the authors use a jawbone as their divination tool. As expected, whatever happens always requires "millions of years" that are never open to observation.

Fossil teeth show how reptiles adapted to change (University of Ediburgh). This story, emerging from Darwin's alma mater, quotes Darwin Party fossil commissar Steve Brusatte using teeth as divination tools to glorify Darwin:

"Teeth are humble fossils, but they reveal a grand story of how sea reptiles evolved over millions of years as their environments changed. Changes in these Jurassic reptiles parallel changes in dolphins and other marine species that are occurring today as sea-levels rise, which speaks to how important fossils are for understanding our modern world."

Notice that all they had in their hands were a few teeth. Can a yarn about climate, ecology and evolution really support the bite put on it? Such language parallels what a Pravda editor might say to affirm Party loyalty when reporting that an election in America demonstrates the class struggle against the bourgeousie.

Are the Paleozoic era's giant dragonflies still among us? (The Conversation). A fun mystery story can sometimes entertain the peasants so they don't revolt. In this tale, Romain Garrouste and André Nel tease that the large dragonflies found in Permian rocks might still live today! Actually, they don't – but it's fun to imagine. Remember to ask what this has to do with Darwinism. Shouldn't today's smaller relatives of dragonflies indicate de-evolution has occurred? But lest we spoil the play, we sit and listen quietly to the actors:

"Don't worry. This isn't an announcement of a new invasion from elsewhere, but a leap into the past in the Paleozoic: the time of giant insects, 100 million years before the dinosaurs, during which insects also had their T-Rex: Carboniferous and Permian giant dragonflies that terrorised the skies of those times, sometimes call "griffenflies"). A short trip back in time to a kind of another Earth in search of insects that were already major actors of the ecosystems."

Holding their props, they sing praise to Darwin: "This observation complements our vision of the ecosystems of this period during which the conquest of airspace allowed important evolutionary lineages to be established." Dissidents in the audience might be wondering how the Party could explain the origin of powered flight in the first place, using only the Stuff Happens Law.

These Tiny Burrows Might Be Some of the Oldest Fossils on Earth (Live Science). Might doesn't make right, but Darwinist reporters love to speculate whenever a fossil "might" make a good offering to lay at the Dear Leader's feet. Faithful BM reporter Catie Keck looks at some tiny openings in Australian rocks, and says they "might" be fossils. They are "suggesting that these 3.4-billion-year-old rock samples once housed some of Earth's earliest life." To add tension to the story (and thus not appear too doctrinaire), she mentions some Party scientists who are not convinced they are fossils at all. But they might be! Mission accomplished. Dear Leader BBBB* has been honored. (*Big Brother Bearded Buddha.)

End-Permian extinction, which wiped out most of Earth's species, was instantaneous in geological time (Phys.org). Danger ahead! Here's a story that creationists might use to support a global Flood in the recent past. This must not happen! In totalitarian regimes, Party strategists sometimes allow risky stories to be published, because it can pre-empt the enemy's line. This story supports de-evolution (extinction), not Darwinian evolution, and it risks sudden, catastrophic scenarios. Not to worry; BM can handle this. By "instantaneous" they still mean a lot of time. "From their analysis, they were able to determine that the end-Permian extinction occurred suddenly, around 252 million years ago, give or take 31,000 years." Why, it could have taken a few centuries! But it was so long ago—252 million Darwin years, BBBB will not object. Besides, think of how so many new "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful" would be able to evolve in the cleared habitats after the slate was cleaned!

Note: Did anyone point them to another recent news item that asked, "Does the fossil record tell the true story about mass extinctions?" (Astrobiology Magazine). Actually, the answer to that question was "Not necessarily" (see "Fossils Can Mislead Big Time," 15 Sept 2018).

Finally, don't forget one of the biggest whoppers of all. We just reported it a few days ago: scientists found soft tissue (original fat molecules) in an Ediacaran fossil (22 Sept 2018). Did BS and BM repent of their big lies and fake ages? Never! Without blinking, they immediately twisted it into support for Darwinism, claiming it is an ancestor of all the animals. And they cheered the Big Lie that this organism's original fat molecules survived for 558 million years, something they could never test or prove without first pledging allegiance to Darwin. Not only that, they announced that future soft tissue discoveries—rather than falsifying their belief—actually will help them find more evidence for evolution! That's not just holding up props for propaganda. That's parading them like batons before a marching band.

Scientists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but blind chance. You have a designed world to win. Join the Revolution!................................

Finally, don't forget one of the biggest whoppers of all. We just reported it a few days ago: scientists found soft tissue (original fat molecules) in an Ediacaran fossil (22 Sept 2018).

Without blinking, they immediately twisted it into support for Darwinism, claiming it is an ancestor of all the animals.

And they cheered the Big Lie that this organism's original fat molecules survived for 558 million years, something they could never test or prove without first pledging allegiance to Darwin.

Not only that, they announced that future soft tissue discoveries—rather than falsifying their belief—actually will help them find more evidence for evolution!

That's not just holding up props for propaganda.

: Amo  Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 13:31:19
Good video about human chimp dan similarity.

: The Barbarian  Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 14:56:21
Whoever wrote that isn't very smart, or maybe he's woefully ignorant of biology and terms used therein.   Molecules aren't tissue:

Tissues are groups of cells that have a similar structure and act together to perform a specific function. The word tissue comes from a form of an old French verb meaning "to weave".
https://biologydictionary.net/tissue/

Oh, and they weren't "fat molecules."   They were cholesterol molecules, found only in animals.  Plants may tiny amounts of similar "phytosterols", but they are easy to distinguish from cholesterol. Hence, the finding of a few molecules of cholesterol indicates these Precambrian organisms were true animals.   This is not welcome news for creationists, who put all their bets on a sudden appearance of animals in the Cambrian, much later.   This is why they changed the story to "fat molecules" instead of cholesterol.

Pretty much a dead giveaway; only animals produce cholesterol.  Not "fat molecules"as they told you to hide the truth.

Cholesterol's molecular fossil identifies Earth's oldest large animals
https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/origins-of-life/Cholesterols-molecular-fossil-identifies-Earths/96/i38

Actually, it's been over a half-century since biologists and chemists showed that organic molecules could survive many millions of years under some natural conditions.   Creationists sometimes claim, without any evidence whatever, that it's impossible.   But they have only their imaginations to support the idea.   No evidence whatever, and biochemists have noted that in the presence of iron atoms and the absence of oxygen, some of these biological molecules have decay reaction rates many millions of years long.

It's already happened.   Some time ago, scientists found a small amount of heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) in T. rex bone.  It turned out to be more like the heme of birds than that of other reptiles.  Which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicted.   

As scientists get better at finding more of these traces of organic molecules, look for more evidence to come.

Right.  That's compelling evidence for evolutionary theory.

There's a lot more errors in your guy's story.   I'll be back to talk about those later.

David Coppedge, B.S. Education, B.S. Physics, founded Creation-Evolution Headlines in late 2000 as a way to share science news he was encountering at NASA. It has grown into a highly-trusted source of news and commentary critical of the pro-Darwin consensus, providing analysis of breaking news of interest to creationists and evolutionists, without the Darwin spin. He has authored almost 5,000 entries at CEH since its inception.

David worked as a system administrator at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory from 1996 to 2011, almost all of it as a member of the Cassini team. For 9 of his 14 years at JPL, he was Team Lead System Administrator, responsible for most of the ground system computers for the prestigious mission to Saturn. He worked on the Cassini operations support team from before launch through cruise, tour, prime mission, first extended mission, and into the second extended mission, getting to know many of the world's most elite planetary scientists. In addition, he led JPL tours and was a Cassini outreach speaker to civic groups and astronomy clubs.

Coppedge's career was cut short by his advocacy of intelligent design. Sharing DVD's on intelligent design occasionally with co-workers, he was accused by a coworker and reported to the Human Resources department, which accused him of 'harassment' and ethics violations. He was demoted from his Team Lead position and eventually terminated, becoming another member of the prestigious "Expelled" community. His experience led to a nationally-publicized court trial about discrimination and retaliation in the workplace, supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Discovery Institute. Unfortunately for him, almost a year after the trial, the lone judge in the case decided against him in January 2013 without explanation

Coppedge now devotes more time to Creation-Evolution Headlines and other ministries seeking to show where the scientific evidence leads.

David Coppedge, B.S. Education, B.S. Physics, founded Creation-Evolution Headlines in late 2000[/ quote]

Can you guess why creationist scientists rarely have any knowledge of biology?    Yep.  That's why.

How about that, they proved in this last century that soft tissues could last for millions and millions of years

Chemists knew it before that.  Reaction mechanisms in Pchem were known to have rates into millions of years.   Many of the decay reactions in humans processing chemical energy have rates that would be that slow, in the absence of enzymes to speed it up.

who knew.

Chemists, biochemists, paleontologists, microbiologists, to name a few.

Molecular palaeontology: New life for old molecules.
Curry GB1.
Abstract
It is perhaps not generally realized that rocks contain at least J0 000 times more organic material than the present day global biomass. More importantly, it has now been demonstrated that some diagnostic molecular structures survive in recognizable form for many millions of years. The development of powerful new techniques for the recovery, purification and identification of organic compounds has provided a major stimulus to the study of these molecular fossils.

....
A review of evidence for biological material in meteorites.
Urey HC1.
Abstract
The first carbonaceous chondrite fell in France in 1806, and in the years following analyses for organic matter were made which showed this material to be similar to material of biological origin. But the analyses were not conclusive. Within the last few years, additional work has been done which has proved to be very interesting and somewhat controversial. The composition of the inorganic fraction of these objects is very similar to that of other meteorites, showing that no sorting by sedimentary processes has occurred. For this reason, students of meteorites have believed that the material could not be biological. However, the soluble constituents are similar to those to be expected in a primitive ocean of the earth. Some of the assumed fossils have been shown to be contaminants but others appear to be indigenous. After mineral matters are removed from them they still show evidence of containing carbonaceous material. Micro-paleontologists have also reported material which they believe to be similar to terrestrial fossils. Fatty acids, porphyrins, and nucleic acid bases have been reported and a small optical activity as well. The immense difficulty that students of meteorites have in understanding this situation may be alleviated if it should be proved that some of our stone meteorites, including the carbonaceous ones, are coming from the moon. There seems to be some possibility that this could be true.

....
Chemical Geology
Volume 152, Issues 1–2, 26 October 1998, Pages 193-203
Variations in
ratios in recent marine sediments: evidence for a fossil organic component
...

Energy Fuels 1997, 11, 3, 515-521
Publication Date:May 20, 1997
Chemical Composition of Paleozoic and Mesozoic Fossil Invertebrate Cuticles As Revealed by Pyrolysis−Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
B. Artur StankiewiczDerek E. G. BriggsRichard P. Evershed
Abstract
The cuticles of 15 fossil invertebrates ranging in age from Silurian to Cretaceous, and including both marine and terrestrial organisms, have been analyzed using pyrolysis−gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (py−GC/MS). Modern invertebrate cuticles were analyzed in the same way as a basis for comparison. The modern cuticles yielded pyrolysis products derived from chitin and proteins, but none of these components was detected in the pyrolysates of the fossil cuticles. The fossil cuticles fall into two, chemically distinct groups:  aliphatic, yielding pairs of n-alk-1-enes and n-alkanes upon pyrolysis, and aromatic, producing pyrolysates dominated by alkylbenzenes and alkylindenes. Aliphatic pyrolysates may derive through polymerization of lipids, e.g., epicuticular waxes, during diagenesis. Alternatively the aliphatic moieties found in algae (algaenan) or in plants (e.g., cutan, suberan) may have been incorporated into the animal cuticles by unknown diagenetic processes. Alkylindenes are major pyrolysis products of the fossil cuticles that generate predominantly aromatic components. This association may resolve the enigma of the frequent occurrence of alkylindenes as minor components in the pyrolysates of most types of kerogen. The abundant thiophenes in the same pyrolysates may reflect sulfur incorporation during diagenesis of the original amino sugar (glucosamine) moieties that comprise the chitin biopolymer.

...

Science  17 Mar 1972:
Vol. 175, Issue 4027, pp. 1246-1248
Carbon Isotopic Studies of Organic Matter in Precambrian Rocks
Dorothy Z. Oehler1, J. William Schopf1, Keith A. Kvenvolden
Abstract
Reduced carbon in early Precambrian cherts of the Fig Tree and upper and middle Onverwacht groups of South Africa is isotopically similar (the average value of δ13CPDB is -28.7 per mil) to photosynthetically produced organic matter of younger geological age. Reduced carbon in lower Onverwacht cherts (Theespruit formation) is anomalously heavy (the average value of δ13CPDB is -16.5 per mil). 


Fuel
Volume 78, Issue 7, May 1999, Pages 745-752
Fuel
Molecular characterization of fossil organic matter in Glyptostrobus europaeus remains from the Orawa basin (Poland). Comparison of pyrolytic techniques
GonzaloAlmendrosaJoséDoradoaFrancisco JGonzález-VilabFranciscoMartı́nbJesúsSanzcConcepciónÁlvarez-RamisdLeonStuchlike
Abstract
Pyrolytic methods (standard Curie-point pyrolysis and pyrolysis in the presence of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, were used to analyze the organic composition of Glyptostrobus (Taxodiaceae) remains from the Miocene deposits of Lipnica Mala (Poland), consisting of branches with their leaves. The pyrolytic analysis revealed a series of aromatic compounds with a large proportion of guaiacyl-type lignin markers (including intact C3-methoxyphenols), and small quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The alkyl compounds included fatty acid series where the C14–C18 homologues dominated as well as additional amounts of alkanes and alkenes (maximum ca. C21). The results suggest that lignin as well as protective epicuticular lipid polymers (including cutin and other long chain-based polyalkyl structures) selectively show the greatest degree of molecular preservation in the Glyptostrobus remains.

Indigeneity of organic matter in fossils: a test using stable isotope analysis of amino acid enantiomers in Quaternary mollusk shells
M H Engel, G A Goodfriend, Y Qian, and S A Macko
PNAS October 25, 1994 91 (22) 10475-10478;
Abstract
Comparison of the delta 13C values of D and L enantiomers of individual amino acids was used to evaluate the presence of amino acid contaminants in Quaternary land snails. Measurements of delta 13C values of amino acid D and L enantiomers determined by combined gas chromatography, combustion, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry are reported. Conventional combustion techniques, following separation of aspartic acid and glutamic acid enantiomers by liquid chromatography, were also used to determine delta 13C as well as delta 15N values. Thoroughly cleaned samples ranging in age from 7000 to > 100,000 yr B.P. are shown to have analytically identical delta 13C values for the D and L enantiomers of each amino acid, thus confirming that the amino acids are indigenous to the shells, even in Pleistocene samples. On the other hand, partially cleaned material shows divergence of isotopic values, thus indicating the presence of amino acid contaminants and emphasizing the importance of proper cleaning procedures. This approach provides a powerful method for assessing the indigeneity of amino acids in fossils.
...

11 July 1997
Analysis of fossil organic nanostructures: terrestrial and extraterrestrial
Hans D. Pflug; Bettina Heinz
Abstract
A review is presented of the currently available evidence of life in the Precambrian, with special reference to ultrafine morphologies of the size range 0.1 - 3 micrometers . The particles are to be found under high apertures of the light microscope in thin sections of the rock and have been examined in demineralized thick sections under the transmission electron microscope (TEM). They have been chemically analyzed in microprobes and spectrophotometer microscopes. On the basis of such studies, the interaction of microorganisms with the formation of minerals can be traced back to early Archean times, 3800 million years ago. There is no evidence for or against the assumption that some kind of prebiotic evolution took place in the recorded history of the Earth. The origin of life is open to alternative explanations, including extraterrestrial phenomena. More information may be obtained from meteorites. Under high magnifications of the TEM, portions of the carbonaceous matter in the Murchison, Orgueil and Allende meteorites appear to be structured. Particles of various morphology can be distinguished. Microprobe techniques have been applied to confirm that the structures are organic and indigenous to the rock. The origin of the finds is not discussed in the present paper.
...
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract
For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

Just as no knows now.

See above.   That's just a few of the dozens a quick review of the literature turned up, all in the previous century.   You've trusted the wrong people again.

Preach to those who accept your fairy tale doctrine of creationism.

: The Barbarian  Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 19:25:25
Chemists knew it before that.  Reaction mechanisms in Pchem were known to have rates into millions of years.   Many of the decay reactions in humans processing chemical energy have rates that would be that slow, in the absence of enzymes to speed it up.

Chemists, biochemists, paleontologists, microbiologists, to name a few.

Molecular palaeontology: New life for old molecules.
Curry GB1.
Abstract
It is perhaps not generally realized that rocks contain at least J0 000 times more organic material than the present day global biomass. More importantly, it has now been demonstrated that some diagnostic molecular structures survive in recognizable form for many millions of years. The development of powerful new techniques for the recovery, purification and identification of organic compounds has provided a major stimulus to the study of these molecular fossils.

....
A review of evidence for biological material in meteorites.
Urey HC1.
Abstract
The first carbonaceous chondrite fell in France in 1806, and in the years following analyses for organic matter were made which showed this material to be similar to material of biological origin. But the analyses were not conclusive. Within the last few years, additional work has been done which has proved to be very interesting and somewhat controversial. The composition of the inorganic fraction of these objects is very similar to that of other meteorites, showing that no sorting by sedimentary processes has occurred. For this reason, students of meteorites have believed that the material could not be biological. However, the soluble constituents are similar to those to be expected in a primitive ocean of the earth. Some of the assumed fossils have been shown to be contaminants but others appear to be indigenous. After mineral matters are removed from them they still show evidence of containing carbonaceous material. Micro-paleontologists have also reported material which they believe to be similar to terrestrial fossils. Fatty acids, porphyrins, and nucleic acid bases have been reported and a small optical activity as well. The immense difficulty that students of meteorites have in understanding this situation may be alleviated if it should be proved that some of our stone meteorites, including the carbonaceous ones, are coming from the moon. There seems to be some possibility that this could be true.

....
Chemical Geology
Volume 152, Issues 1–2, 26 October 1998, Pages 193-203
Variations in
ratios in recent marine sediments: evidence for a fossil organic component
...

Energy Fuels 1997, 11, 3, 515-521
Publication Date:May 20, 1997
Chemical Composition of Paleozoic and Mesozoic Fossil Invertebrate Cuticles As Revealed by Pyrolysis−Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
B. Artur StankiewiczDerek E. G. BriggsRichard P. Evershed
Abstract
The cuticles of 15 fossil invertebrates ranging in age from Silurian to Cretaceous, and including both marine and terrestrial organisms, have been analyzed using pyrolysis−gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (py−GC/MS). Modern invertebrate cuticles were analyzed in the same way as a basis for comparison. The modern cuticles yielded pyrolysis products derived from chitin and proteins, but none of these components was detected in the pyrolysates of the fossil cuticles. The fossil cuticles fall into two, chemically distinct groups:  aliphatic, yielding pairs of n-alk-1-enes and n-alkanes upon pyrolysis, and aromatic, producing pyrolysates dominated by alkylbenzenes and alkylindenes. Aliphatic pyrolysates may derive through polymerization of lipids, e.g., epicuticular waxes, during diagenesis. Alternatively the aliphatic moieties found in algae (algaenan) or in plants (e.g., cutan, suberan) may have been incorporated into the animal cuticles by unknown diagenetic processes. Alkylindenes are major pyrolysis products of the fossil cuticles that generate predominantly aromatic components. This association may resolve the enigma of the frequent occurrence of alkylindenes as minor components in the pyrolysates of most types of kerogen. The abundant thiophenes in the same pyrolysates may reflect sulfur incorporation during diagenesis of the original amino sugar (glucosamine) moieties that comprise the chitin biopolymer.

...

Science  17 Mar 1972:
Vol. 175, Issue 4027, pp. 1246-1248
Carbon Isotopic Studies of Organic Matter in Precambrian Rocks
Dorothy Z. Oehler1, J. William Schopf1, Keith A. Kvenvolden
Abstract
Reduced carbon in early Precambrian cherts of the Fig Tree and upper and middle Onverwacht groups of South Africa is isotopically similar (the average value of δ13CPDB is -28.7 per mil) to photosynthetically produced organic matter of younger geological age. Reduced carbon in lower Onverwacht cherts (Theespruit formation) is anomalously heavy (the average value of δ13CPDB is -16.5 per mil). 


Fuel
Volume 78, Issue 7, May 1999, Pages 745-752
Fuel
Molecular characterization of fossil organic matter in Glyptostrobus europaeus remains from the Orawa basin (Poland). Comparison of pyrolytic techniques
GonzaloAlmendrosaJoséDoradoaFrancisco JGonzález-VilabFranciscoMartı́nbJesúsSanzcConcepciónÁlvarez-RamisdLeonStuchlike
Abstract
Pyrolytic methods (standard Curie-point pyrolysis and pyrolysis in the presence of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, were used to analyze the organic composition of Glyptostrobus (Taxodiaceae) remains from the Miocene deposits of Lipnica Mala (Poland), consisting of branches with their leaves. The pyrolytic analysis revealed a series of aromatic compounds with a large proportion of guaiacyl-type lignin markers (including intact C3-methoxyphenols), and small quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The alkyl compounds included fatty acid series where the C14–C18 homologues dominated as well as additional amounts of alkanes and alkenes (maximum ca. C21). The results suggest that lignin as well as protective epicuticular lipid polymers (including cutin and other long chain-based polyalkyl structures) selectively show the greatest degree of molecular preservation in the Glyptostrobus remains.

Indigeneity of organic matter in fossils: a test using stable isotope analysis of amino acid enantiomers in Quaternary mollusk shells
M H Engel, G A Goodfriend, Y Qian, and S A Macko
PNAS October 25, 1994 91 (22) 10475-10478;
Abstract
Comparison of the delta 13C values of D and L enantiomers of individual amino acids was used to evaluate the presence of amino acid contaminants in Quaternary land snails. Measurements of delta 13C values of amino acid D and L enantiomers determined by combined gas chromatography, combustion, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry are reported. Conventional combustion techniques, following separation of aspartic acid and glutamic acid enantiomers by liquid chromatography, were also used to determine delta 13C as well as delta 15N values. Thoroughly cleaned samples ranging in age from 7000 to > 100,000 yr B.P. are shown to have analytically identical delta 13C values for the D and L enantiomers of each amino acid, thus confirming that the amino acids are indigenous to the shells, even in Pleistocene samples. On the other hand, partially cleaned material shows divergence of isotopic values, thus indicating the presence of amino acid contaminants and emphasizing the importance of proper cleaning procedures. This approach provides a powerful method for assessing the indigeneity of amino acids in fossils.
...

11 July 1997
Analysis of fossil organic nanostructures: terrestrial and extraterrestrial
Hans D. Pflug; Bettina Heinz
Abstract
A review is presented of the currently available evidence of life in the Precambrian, with special reference to ultrafine morphologies of the size range 0.1 - 3 micrometers . The particles are to be found under high apertures of the light microscope in thin sections of the rock and have been examined in demineralized thick sections under the transmission electron microscope (TEM). They have been chemically analyzed in microprobes and spectrophotometer microscopes. On the basis of such studies, the interaction of microorganisms with the formation of minerals can be traced back to early Archean times, 3800 million years ago. There is no evidence for or against the assumption that some kind of prebiotic evolution took place in the recorded history of the Earth. The origin of life is open to alternative explanations, including extraterrestrial phenomena. More information may be obtained from meteorites. Under high magnifications of the TEM, portions of the carbonaceous matter in the Murchison, Orgueil and Allende meteorites appear to be structured. Particles of various morphology can be distinguished. Microprobe techniques have been applied to confirm that the structures are organic and indigenous to the rock. The origin of the finds is not discussed in the present paper.
...
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract
For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

See above.   That's just a few of the dozens a quick review of the literature turned up, all in the previous century.   You've trusted the wrong people again.

Preach to those who accept your fairy tale doctrine of creationism.

Human origins are much more diverse than previously thought

...........................................................


In fact, if you were to travel back to the very beginnings of our species and select a random group of humans, they would look unlike anyone living today in Africa or elsewhere. What's more, they would show extraordinary physical variation - greatly exceeding that in modern human populations. Far from becoming more diverse as we have adapted to life in different parts of the planet, Homo sapiens is more homogeneous today than our ancestors were.

This is a real puzzle. It simply doesn't fit with the long-held idea that we arose from a single population in a corner of East Africa. In fact, mounting evidence from fossils, archaeological remains and genetic analysis points in a new direction. Now researchers, including myself, are trying to work out what it all means: why our African forebears were so physically different from each other, and how our species lost the huge variety it once had.........................................................

Ancient sharks likely more diverse than previously thought

Sharks have a reputation as ravenous hunters and apex predators, but new analysis of fossil records shows that some of the earliest sharks might have been filter feeders, taking in water through their mouths and catching food particles -- think less great white and more anchovy, another filter feeder.

This research, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), pushes the date for the last common ancestor between sharks and other types of jawed vertebrates back to 440 million years ago -- more than 17 million years older than the previous estimate -- and raises new questions about what life was like during a prehistoric period long shrouded in secrecy...............................................

Whale shark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whale shark (Rhincodon typus) is a slow-moving, filter-feeding carpet shark and the largest known extant fish species. The largest confirmed individual had a length of 18.8 m (62 ft) [8] The whale shark holds many records for size in the animal kingdom, most notably being by far the largest living nonmammalian vertebrate. It is the sole member of the genus Rhincodon and the only extant member of the family Rhincodontidae, which belongs to the subclass Elasmobranchii in the class Chondrichthyes. Before 1984 it was classified as Rhiniodon into Rhinodontidae..................................

: Amo  Sat Jan 18, 2020 - 08:05:16
Just so much, mumbo jumbo according to those of the deep time faith scenario.

: The Barbarian  Sun Jan 19, 2020 - 09:08:47
Everything is confusing to those who don't understand it.   Just more evidence, showing that chemists knew organic molecules could last many millions of years, long before paleontologists found such molecules.

World's Oldest Penguins More Diverse than Previously Thought

Thursday 23 February 2017

Mayr G, De Pietri V L, Scofield, R P (2017). A new fossil from the mid-Paleocene of New Zealand reveals an unexpected diversity of world's oldest penguins. The Science of Nature 104: 9.

The fossilised lower leg bones of a giant penguin that lived 61 million years ago in New Zealand have provided scientists with new insights into the early evolutionary history of penguins. In this study, researchers postulate that penguins had attained a high level of morphological diversity early in their evolutionary history, suggesting that their evolution began much earlier than previously thought................

Earth's first ecosystems were more complex than previously thought, study finds

Computer simulations have allowed scientists to work out how a puzzling 555-million-year-old organism with no known modern relatives fed, revealing that some of the first large, complex organisms on Earth formed ecosystems that were much more complex than previously thought..................................

Mammals almost wiped out with the dinosaurs

Over 90 per cent of mammal species were wiped out by the same asteroid that killed the dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period 66 million years ago, significantly more than previously thought.......................

Dinosaurs DIDN'T have it all their own way: Earliest tree and underground dwelling mammals discovered - and are far more advanced than previously thought

NEWS FEATURE  23 OCTOBER 2019

How the earliest mammals thrived alongside dinosaurs

An explosion of fossil finds reveals that ancient mammals evolved a wide variety of adaptations allowing them to exploit the skies, rivers and underground lairs.

...................................................................

The find is among a mass of discoveries in the past 10–20 years that are illuminating milestones in mammalian evolution. Although major finds are emerging all over the world, the largest number are coming out of China; together, they have overturned the now dated belief that dinosaur-era mammals were small, unremarkable insectivores, eking out a life in the shadows of the giant reptiles.................

Out of the shadows

In 1824, at the Geological Society of London, naturalist William Buckland presented bones from one of the first known dinosaurs, Megalosaurus. At the same talk, he revealed tiny mammalian jaws that had been found in the same fossil deposit. Their presence suggested that mammals had a very deep history, but as would happen repeatedly, the dinosaur discoveries completely overshadowed the mammal ones.

The slow trickle of mammal finds from around the world continued for 150 years. Then in 1997, researchers described the first ancient mammal from the fossil-rich rocks of Liaoning in northeastern China2, and the floodgates opened. Since then, 50 or more near-complete and "beautiful specimens" have been found there, according to Jin Meng, a palaeontologist at the American Museum of Natural History. Like the dinosaur fossils, they are dug up by local farmers and sold on to museums.

But the dinosaurs continued to get the vast majority of the attention, says palaeontologist Steve Brusatte at the University of Edinburgh, UK. "It's only that very recently, through the work of Luo, Meng and others, that the mammals are getting their due."..................................

Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs

When the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought.

Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.

Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

This totally overturns the notion of dinosaur-age mammals as tiny and nocturnal, says vertebrate palaeontologist Hans-Dieter Sues of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, US. "Apparently some mammals could grow much larger than anyone had thought was possible."...............................

: Amo  Sat Feb 01, 2020 - 13:53:17
And yet so many evolutionary scientists and believers expressed so much surprise and even denied the claims when such was found. I guess they just didn't even know that some of their fairy tale creating scientists already believed such could last millions of years. Or as it actually is in some cases, hundreds of millions of years. Ah yes, the never ending adaptions of the theory of evolution. No evidence is or can be contrary to evolution, to the contrary, the theory will just adapt or change to whatever new information proves the old speculations wrong. Everyone knows that is how real science is. Theory first, then twist facts or theory as necessary to maintain the same. So be it.

: Alan  Sat Feb 01, 2020 - 16:29:29

No, it's not twisting facts, it's the addition of new evidence which is how science works. Try harder to keep up here.

Giant new 'graveyard' of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths found 'by accident' in Siberia

By the Siberian Times reporter09 August 2017

Site identified in Krasnoyarsk region where man 'trapped and killed' mammoths, suspect paleontologists.

The necropolis of extinct beasts is potentially one of the biggest in Russia for remains of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths, it is believed.

Dr Sergey Leschinsky, of Tomsk State University, led an expedition this summer to make a detailed stratigraphic study of the opencast Bolshoy Ilek beside Chulym River.

'They did not expect to find the bones," said a university statement. 'During the study, scientists managed to find remains of large herbivorous  and carnivorous dinosaurs.

'Above them were geological horizons with the bones of mammoths, woolly rhinos and predators.' 

Dr Leschinsky said that with the woolly mammoth remains 'almost all the bones are broken.

'There are no traces of gnawing by predators, so probably it is the result of the actions of prehistoric humans.'

Previously there was little sign of dinosaur bones Mesozoic era at the site, in cliffs on the river.

'Now we have Mesozoic bones, which we can date as 120 to 100 million years ago.'

The site is seen as similar to the famous Shostakovsky yar necropolis - large dinosaur graveyard in Kemerovo region.

It is one of the largest deposit of dinosaurs and mammoths remains in Russia.

Scientists plan to continue to examine the Bolshoy Ilek site and seek evidence of man's implements and weapons proving he was behind the woolly mammoth slaughter here.

New mass grave of woolly mammoths found by Siberian river

By Kate Baklitskaya and Olga Gertcyk01 October 2015

...

'For years, people took the bones as souvenirs and as a result we did not find a single tusk, teeth and large bones. It is these that attracts people first of all. The great thing is that we have found the place from which the bones were washed away by the river, and now we can conduct the large-scale excavations there.'

At least four other mass graves of woolly mammoths are known in Siberia. They are at Mamontovoye (Volchya Griva, Novosibirsk region), Shestakovo (Kemerovo region), Krasnoyarskaya Kurya (Tomsk region), and Berelekh (Yakutia).

Why do they exist? One theory is that the mammoths suffered a mineral deficiency and were desperately seeking calcium at sites of so-called salt licks. The creatures suffered a crippling bone disease and perished at sites where they sought solace, as if at an ancient mammoth health spa.

Another version is that they were trapped by ancient hunters. Recently we highlighted the mass grave at a village called Mamontovoye - or Mammoth.

Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There'

Workers with the Canadian energy company Suncor unearthed ankylosaur remains while mining oil sands near Fort McMurray in Alberta. The carcass of the four-legged land creature was not flattened, as is the case with many fossilized vertebrates. But most strangely, it was found in an area known primarily for fossilized marine creatures.

Previous vertebrate fossils found in this oil sand formation were marine reptiles, like the ichthyosaur and plesiosaur. Marine invertebrates such as clams and ammonites are the more typical fossils found in the region, so a large, land-living ankylosaur "wasn't supposed to be there."1

But finding a mixture of fossilized marine and land creatures together is not an unusual occurrence. For example, the famous dinosaur beds in the Morrison Formation at Dinosaur National Monument contain logs, clams, snails, and mammals.2

And the Institute for Creation Research's front lobby features a juvenile hadrosaur taken from the Two Medicine Formation—a sandstone formation which extends from the east side of the Rocky Mountains eastward to Edmonton, Canada—that was fossilized alongside marine clams and snails, as well as birds, mammals, and other dinosaurs.

Medical doctor Carl Werner actually used fossil-related criteria as a test for evolution.2 He reasoned that if the evolutionary story were true and that dinosaurs lived in a unique "Age of Reptiles," and if everyday natural processes were responsible for their fossilization, then no fossils of creatures from other "ages"—for example, creatures that had not yet evolved—should be mixed up with dinosaur fossils.

But Werner found that a fossil mixture of very different kinds was typical. He told Creation magazine:

Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers....But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.3

Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."3 If museums displayed these real fossils instead of adorning dinosaur dioramas with feathers, then the evolutionary story that "dinosaurs evolved into birds" would be quickly seen as the fiction that it is.4

There are many other examples of land-dwelling dinosaur fossils mixed with sea creatures.5 This kind of evidence is to be expected if a world-destroying flood was responsible for the bulk of the world's fossils, dinosaur and otherwise, considering that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."6

: Amo  Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:15:13
As always, and as I freely admit, my faith in scripture above human speculation guides my decision process.

: Amo  Sat Feb 01, 2020 - 13:53:17
And yet so many evolutionary scientists and believers expressed so much surprise and even denied the claims when such was found.

There are wooly mammoth graveyards all over the world, which continue to be discovered. The highlighted two paragraphs at the bottom of quote above ask the crucial question, "Why do they exist?".

: Amo  Sat Feb 01, 2020 - 14:36:26
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2951268/Furry-forerunners-Jurassic-arboreal-burrowing-mammals-unearthed.html

Finding more mammals living along side dinosaurs all the time, and more complex than they thought, which of course according to their theory requires more time for them to have evolutionarily developed. More and more and more of the same suggesting creation over evolution. Complexity and variety from the very beginning. Such indications being ignored by evolutionists of course.

: The Barbarian  Tue Feb 04, 2020 - 09:58:38
Those guys in the video, also.   Instead of faking mathematical arguments, why not just say "my faith tells me this is true" and honestly present that?    By using phony math, they undercut their own beliefs.

Honest creationists like Kurt Wise and Tim Wood readlily admit the fact that there is very good evidence for evolutionary theory, but assert their understanding of Genesis instead.   One can respect that sort of faith,even if most Christians wouldn't agree with it.

Vindicated by Behe: Devolution Is Natural, Evolution Is Not
Granville Sewell
April 1, 2019, 4:05 AM

I know many other mathematicians and engineers who share my low opinion of Darwinism, but most are reluctant to express their views publicly because they feel that the issue is simply outside their area of expertise and they will not be taken seriously. I also tend to defer to specialists on scientific issues outside my discipline — until those specialists try to tell me something clearly absurd, for example, that unintelligent forces alone could have reorganized the basic particles on Earth into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. Then I don't hesitate to jump into the debate. I have done so, for example, in a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer opinion piece, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," and in a 2017 Physics Essays article, "On 'Compensating' Entropy Decreases."

A Very Simple Principle

It is really not necessary to be a biochemist or a paleontologist to understand the main issue in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design. That is because it is a very simple principle, as I keep emphasizing: natural (unintelligent) causes do not create order (or information). They destroy it. That is the main theme of the first half of my video "Why Evolution Is Different."

While every other natural process tends to turn order into disorder, Darwinists have always believed that natural selection is the one unintelligent process in the universe that can create spectacular order out of disorder. So I feel vindicated by Michael Behe's new book, Darwin Devolves, which disputes this belief, and argues that despite all the claims about the creative powers of natural selection, it has never actually been observed to produce anything new and complex, only "devolution":

"Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting....Darwin's mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain."

And so we conclude that perhaps natural selection of random mutations is like every other unintelligent cause in the universe after all, and tends to create disorder out of order and not vice-versa.

Only Devolution Occurred

As another illustration that selection and mutations can only degrade, in this interview on German TV, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig recounts (minutes 24:00 to 28:00, turn on English subtitles if you don't speak German) the well-funded attempts at, among other places, his own Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, to speed up evolution in plants using radiation and advanced artificial selection techniques. Lönnig reports that only devolution occurred: the only progress observed before this effort was given up was that the genes that made some plants toxic were damaged, making these plants more useful as animal fodder.

That it seems even superficially plausible that random mutations could produce major improvements relies completely on the observed but inexplicable fact that while they are awaiting rare favorable mutations, living species are able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants without significant degradation, generation after generation.

To appreciate how astonishing this is, imagine that it were possible (though it is far beyond our current technology) to construct a fleet of cars that contained completely automated car-building factories inside, with the ability to construct new cars — and not just normal new cars, but new cars containing automated car-building factories inside them. If we left these cars alone and let them reproduce themselves for many generations, is there any chance we would eventually see major advances arise through natural selection of the resulting duplication errors?

Of course not. We could confidently predict that the whole process would grind to a halt after a few generations without intelligent humans there to fix the mechanical problems that would inevitably arise. And we don't need to know the details of how these cars work and reproduce to predict this, because there is a simpler principle involved here: devolution is natural, evolution is not.

The Argument Could Not Be Clearer

I am very grateful that there are biologists like Michael Behe and W.E. Lönnig who doubt Darwinism, because doubts expressed by mathematicians like me would otherwise never be taken seriously. But you really do not have to study the biochemical details to understand why the accumulation of genetic accidents cannot produce human brains and human consciousness. And you do not really need to study mutations for thirty years, as Lönnig has done, to predict that bombarding plant chromosomes with radiation would not lead to major agricultural advances.

The argument against Darwinism, or any other attempt to explain what has happened on Earth without intelligent design, could not be simpler or clearer: a few fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone cannot rearrange the fundamental particles of physics into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. And any attempt to explain how they can must break down somewhere, because they obviously can't.

few fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone cannot rearrange the fundamental particles of physics into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones.

: The Barbarian  Tue Feb 04, 2020 - 10:02:40
No, that's wrong.  For example, the first known ancient biological molecules were those in Amber.  Before Darwin's time, scientists realized that these were millions of years old.

No one was surprised that it happens.    Evolutionary scientists were pleased because the heme and collagen in dinosaur fossils confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291

: The Barbarian  Tue Feb 04, 2020 - 10:05:07
For the same reason we have huge numbers of horse fossils.   They existed in massive herds, and lived where fossilization was relatively common.   

: The Barbarian  Tue Feb 04, 2020 - 10:07:37
Actually,protomammals and their relatives dominated the Earth before the dinosaurs began.   So it's not surprising to any paleontologist.   To those unfamiliar with the fossil record, it perhaps looks odd.

But not to anyone who understands the record.

Smithsonian Magazine

Early Mammals Were Thought to Be Small and Unseen in the Age of Dinosaurs. An Elephant-Sized Fossil Complicates That Story

...............................................................

The beast, named Lisowicia bojani, looked something like a cross between rhinoceros and a turtle, weighing in at nine tons. The creature is a dicynodont, one of the first groups of animals to eat plants. It's also part of a broader group of creatures called synapsids, which includes the direct ancestors of mammals, making it something of a cousin to the earliest mammal ancestors, or proto-mammals. The most intriguing thing about the creature, however, is that it dates to the Late Triassic period about 201 to 240 million years ago when dinosaurs first began their reign. It was believed that by that period most other creatures had shrunk in size to hide from the giants, including dicynodonts, which maxed out at the size of a dog, but L. bojani shows that's not the case. The research appears in the journal Science.......................................

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 09:31:06
Actually, Behe agrees that all living things on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.    Since the fact of evolution and increasing fitness in populations by evolution has been repeatedly observed, there's no point in denying  it.   Populations tend to become more fit, not less fit.

Would you like me to show you some examples?

Your guy had to use human artifacts, instead of natural things, because there's a fundamental difference.  Artifacts are designed.  Living things, as your guy Behe says, evolved.

Fundamental unintelligent forces of physics can't make iPhones, but they can bring forth life from the Earth as God tells us that they did.

Darwin Devolves: Another Huge Advance Against Darwinism and for Intelligent Design

Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has been keeping committed Darwinists awake nights for years. His 1996 book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution asked a long-ignored question: If Darwin's theory explains everything so well, why hasn't anyone shown how it works at the minutest level, biochemistry? If it doesn't work there, it doesn't work anywhere.

Now Behe has released a new book, based on new science, showing once again that it doesn't work there. Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution is going to cause a lot more sleepless nights.

The new science he covers in this book shows that Darwin's theory can explain some changes, but quickly breaks down. DNA sequencing has only been available in the past decade or two. Its findings show that when organisms change, they do it almost always by breaking genes, not by making new ones. So in general, the evidence shows that when species evolve, they're really devolving. And that devolution prevents future evolution.

Evolution (Unguided) Breaks Things

Behe defines his terms carefully. Evolution, in particular, means many different things. On one level, it simply says things change over time. No controversy there. On another level, it's a theory of common descent, saying that all organisms came by something like a branching tree from one common ancestor. But classic evolutionary theory also claims that this common descent, and all the adaptations of life, happened by an unguided process: natural selection sifting random variations. This, Behe says, flatly conflicts with the evidence..................

Evolution: The Rise of Complexity

   By Christie Wilcox on January 16, 2012


Let's rewind time back about 3.5 billion years. Our beloved planet looks nothing like the lush home we know today - it is a turbulent place, still undergoing the process of formation. Land is a fluid concept, consisting of molten lava flows being created and destroyed by massive volcanoes. The air is thick with toxic gasses like methane and ammonia which spew from the eruptions. Over time, water vapor collects, creating our first weather events, though on this early Earth there is no such thing as a light drizzle. Boiling hot acid rain pours down on the barren land for millions of years, slowly forming bubbling oceans and seas. Yet in this unwelcoming, violent landscape, life begins.

The creatures which dared to arise are called cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. They were the pioneers of photosynthesis, transforming the toxic atmosphere by producing oxygen and eventually paving the way for the plants and animals of today. But what is even more incredible is that they were the first to do something extraordinary - they were the first cells to join forces and create multicellular life.

ORIGINS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS

We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004). There is suggestive evidence that photosynthetic organisms were present approximately 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago, in the form of stromatolites, layered structures similar to forms that are produced by some modern cyanobacteria, as well as numerous microfossils that have been interpreted as arising from phototrophs (Des Marais, 2000). In all these cases, phototrophs are not certain to have been the source of the fossils, but are inferred from the morphology or geological context. There is also isotopic evidence for autotrophic carbon fixation at 3.7 to 3.8 billion years ago, although there is nothing that indicates that these organisms were photosynthetic. All of these claims for early photosynthesis are highly controversial and have engendered a great deal of spirited discussion in the literature (Buick, 2008). Evidence for the timing of the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis and the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere is discussed below. The accumulated evidence suggests that photosynthesis began early in Earth's history, but was probably not one of the earliest metabolisms and that the earliest forms of photosynthesis were anoxygenic, with oxygenic forms arising significantly later.

: Amo  Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 10:04:40
Let's address your above false statement

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 20:46:21
No, that's wrong.  For example, the first known ancient biological molecules were those in Amber.  Before Darwin's time, scientists realized that these were millions of years old.

No one was surprised that it happens.    Evolutionary scientists were pleased because the heme and collagen in dinosaur fossils confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291


As you see, it's documented research.    No point in denying the fact. 

Your undocumented anecdote, notwithstanding.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 62, Issues 1–4, January 1988, Pages 343-359
Fossil pigments in paleoecology and paleolimnology
Jon E.Sanger
Abstract

For the past several decades scientists have been examining the nature of sedimentary chlorophylls and carotenoids from freshwater lakes for their value in paleoecology and paleolimnology. Unaltered chlorophyll molecules are rarely preserved for long periods, but the pheo-derivatives and chlorophyllides are common throughout lake sedimentary columns. Carotenoids tend to preserve largely unaltered from their conditions in living plant membranes, but degrade quickly to colorless derivatives when oxidized.

Measurements of sedimentary pigment concentrations, ratios of chlorophyll derivatives to carotenoids and diversity, especially as regards prokaryote carotenoids, are most commonly published.

Lots more where that came from.  How many would you like to see?

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 08, 2020 - 20:47:34
Notice that scientists have realized that organic molecules can survive for many millions of years, for decades.

You've been completely misled about that, as the reports I've shown you demonstrate.

: Amo  Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:14:57
Comparing molecules locked in amber and or at the bottom of lakes to dinosaur bones recovered from the ground right near the surface

as though they were subject to the same elements of decay,

Poor Mary and all those other evolutionary scientists who expressed so much surprise and doubt about soft tissues in dinosaur bones, they were and apparently are all just so ignorant compared to Barb, aren't they.

It's a big step for evolution, going from a single cell focused solely on its own survival to a multicellular organism where cells coordinate and work together. Creationists often cite this jump as evidence of God's influence, because it seems impossible that creatures could make such a brazen leap unaided. But scientists have shown that multicellularity can arise in the lab, given strong enough selective pressure.

Just ask William Ratcliff and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota. In a PNAS paper published online this week, they show how multicellular yeast can arise in less than two months in the lab. To achieve this leap, they took brewer's yeast - a common, single celled lab organism - and grew them in a liquid medium. Once a day, they gently spun the yeast in the culture, starting the next batch with whichever cells ended up at the bottom of the tube. Because the force of spinning pulls larger things down first, clumps of cells were more likely to be at the bottom than single ones, thus setting up a strong selective pressure for multicellularity.

All of their cultures went from single cells to snowflake-like clumps in less than 60 days. "Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years, we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions," write the authors. These clumps weren't just independent cells sticking together for the sake of it - they acted as rudimentary multicellular creatures. They were formed not by random cells attaching but by genetically identical cells not fully separating after division.

Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."

: The Barbarian  Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:26:48
Actually, amber is recovered right near the surface.    Like dinosaur bones, it gets buried, and then over time, erosion removes most of of the sediment, and it is then found.   

They are.   Almost all dinosaur bones and amber degrade over time.   Only when they have been buried under specific circumstances do they fossilize.   The imaginative story that dinosaur bones are somehow different than other fossils, is merely an evasion.

It is just what I would expect from one trying to deny the truth of the matter.

Actually Schweitzer and others used the data from other such fossils to support their claim that the heme and collagen molecules in some dinosaur bone were also preserved as she knew they were in other fossils.   You've been misled about that.   As you now realize, there are many such examples in the literature.   Did you suppose Schweitzer didn't know about them?   Seriously?

But Schweitzer's team pressed on. In 2009, she, Asara, and colleagues reported in Science that they had isolated protein fragments from a second dinosaur, an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur. Asara's lab identified eight collagen fragments. This time Schweitzer sent samples of fossil extract to an independent lab, which also detected three of the collagen fragments.

Collectively, the sequences showed the purported hadrosaur collagen was more closely related to T. rex and birds than to modern reptiles. "This proves the first [T. rex] study was not a one-hit wonder," Asara said at the time. Two labs also detected the proteins laminin and elastin with antibody tests, although mass spectrometry failed to turn up sequences for these proteins.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt

The real news is that Schweitzer's data provide an entirely new confirmation that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   As you learned, it's been known for decades that organic molecules can survive in fossils for many millions of years.   Would you like me to show you more examples?

: Amo  Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:19:02
If anyone was misled, it was by scientists of your own faith, not mine. A creation scientist would have no good reason to be as surprised by such.

Even though biological soft tissues thousands of years old is no doubt somewhat rare.

Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."

: The Barbarian  Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:43:19
There was considerable consternation among creationists when the molecules Schweitzer located, one again confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   However creation scientists, who (as you learned) admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" (Kurt Wise) and that:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

No, that's not true.   It's not hard to find at all.   Tissues (which is not what Schweitzer found) are surprisingly easy to find from thousands of years.  So far, no one's shown actual tissue (groups of cells organized for some function) that are many millions of years old.  But as Schweitzer and others have shown, organic molecules do indeed last that long under some circumstances.

And, as you also now realize, that's been known for decades.   You can twist and turn as you will, but the reality is documented again, and again.

No way to dodge it.

: The Barbarian  Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:47:23
Let's see what Denton has to say about evolution...

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

You sure you want to tout Denton's views on evolution?

WEBSTER

Assumption - 1. The act of assuming. 2. A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration. 3. Presumption or arrogance.

: Amo  Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:35:51
Continued from reply # 239How about that, random chance evolution is kind of like a baby,

: Amo  Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 12:14:47The belief in Natural biological evolution is an assumption which has not and cannot be proved

: Amo  Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 11:50:57
No, evolution is not about to collapse,

it has millions of deceived followers, just like Buddhism, Islam, and a score of other false religions.

Soft tissue does not last for hundreds of millions of years

Blogger Todd is as entitled to his opinion as all the rest of us,

I place no value in his opinion though.

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 15:47:27
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. This keeps tripping you up, each time you try to understand it.

Definition of random (Entry 1 of 3)
: a haphazard course
at random
: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method
.......................
Definition of random (Entry 2 of 3)
1a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 15:59:10
It's directly observed to happen.   Remember what evolution is.   "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   You've likely confused evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or with consequences of evolution, like common descent.

As you might know, most creationist groups admit the truth of natural selection, and even a limited amount of common descent.   Would you like to learn about those?

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 00:07:55
Being observed constantly, it's pretty hard not to notice that it's going strong.

As you demonstrate, YE creationists confuse science and religion, which is why they don't accept Genesis as God gave it to us.

Apparently not, since no one has found tissue that old.  (you don't seem to know what "tissue" means in biology)   On the other hand,as you learned, some organic molecules can persist that long under the right conditions.  One of those recently again confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Being a PhD biologist, he does have some weight to his opinion.   

As Everett Dirkson once noted, people are often down on things they aren't up on.

: Alan  Fri Feb 28, 2020 - 09:49:27
Mad Mike Hughes certainly couldn't prove that the earth was flat but he certainly proved that the law of physics are valid.  ::smile::

Our eyes, as well as those of octopuses and fish, took a different approach than those of the arthropods, putting photo receptors into a pit, thus creating what is referred to as a camera-style eye. In the fossil record, eyes seem to emerge from eyeless predecessors rapidly, in less than 5 million years. But is it really possible that an eye like ours arose so suddenly? Yes, say biologists Dan-E. Nilsson and Susanne Pelger. They calculated a pessimistic guess as to how long it would take for small changes - just 1% improvements in length, depth, etc per generation - to turn a flat eyespot into an eye like our own. Their conclusion? It would only take about 400,000 years - a geological instant.

: Amo  Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 16:13:03
Continued from reply #245

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

How about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures.

Who knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

I wonder why our eyes have decided they no longer need to become more advanced and are therefore apparently no longer changing?

The above description fails to address the fact that any changes taking place, would have to either not effect the already complex and interdependent nature of eye function, or add to it and fit in with said complex relations.

It is one thing for simple change to occur, it is another altogether for change perfectly adapted to fit into an already highly complex and interdependent system to occur.

It is not just change that must take place, but each change must become more and more specific to a positive effect upon the complex relation and function of the organ or organism already in place.

: The Barbarian  Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 17:54:45
Yep.   Unlike (for example) octopi, squid, and nautili, our eyes are extensions of neural tube ectoderm, meaning they are from the nervous system.  So ours are "backward" with respect to those of an octopus.    Just the way they happen to develop.

I'm thinking you've jumped to a rather odd conclusion here.

Actually, they've evolved to be nearly as effective as the "right side out" variety.   A little less acuity, but some other useful adaptations.

This looks like more fairy tale speculations and personification of organs in this case, by "creation scientists" giving us their best guess. 

No. 

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/bin/nihms309801f4.jpg)

The chordate eye was quite simple early on, and notice that more complex examples, start as embryos in the same way.

Bad assumption; faulty conclusion.


See above.  And this...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg/1200px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png)

Each change also adding to the complexity and therefore improbability of the next change which would have to be even more specific. Each change therefore making the next change all the more unlikely. Such is of course much more highly suggestive of design than simplistic evolutionary change unto incomprehensible complexity. This is unless of course we are looking at devolution rather than evolution. In which case decreasing complexity would be fully expected. [/color]

But how does complexity arise in the first place? How did cells get photoreceptors, or any of the first steps towards innovations such as vision? Well, complexity can arise a number of ways.

Each and every one of our cells is a testament to the simplest way that complexity can arise: have one simple thing combine with a different one. The powerhouses of our cells, called mitochondria, are complex organelles that are thought to have arisen in a very simple way. Some time around 3 billion years ago, certain bacteria had figured out how to create energy using electrons from oxygen, thus becoming aerobic. Our ancient ancestors thought this was quite a neat trick, and, as single cells tend to do, they ate these much smaller energy-producing bacteria. But instead of digesting their meal, our ancestors allowed the bacteria to live inside them as an endosymbiont, and so the deal was struck: our ancestor provides the fuel for the chemical reactions that the bacteria perform, and the bacteria, in turn, produces ATP for both of them. Even today we can see evidence of this early agreement - mitochondria, unlike other organelles, have their own DNA, reproduce independently of the cell's reproduction, and are enclosed in a double membrane (the bacterium's original membrane and the membrane capsule used by our ancestor to engulf it). Over time the mitochondria lost other parts of their biology they didn't need, like the ability to move around, blending into their new home as if they never lived on their own. The end result of all of this, of course, was a much more complex cell, with specialized intracellular compartments devoted to different functions: what we now refer to as a eukaryote.

: Amo  Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 16:13:03

How about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures.

Who knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

I wonder why our eyes have decided they no longer need to become more advanced and are therefore apparently no longer changing?

: Rella  Sun Mar 08, 2020 - 15:10:49
@The Barbarian

Quick question.

If animals do not see colors like humans do. Can you confirm or deny that animals preceded mankind in existence?

If they did precede mankind in existence, why do you suppose all colors came into being when they may not all me seen?

2nd quick question.

I know for a fact that dogs do see colors. I believe you said not like us as they have only 2 cones and we have 3? (Did not go back to find that)

I believe you also said they would see more of the blue / green colors and not the reds?

If I am wrong, correct me.

Could you speculate as to why,for her very first Christmas I bought my toy poodle12 of her favorite latex balls.

They were of assorted colors of red, orange, blue,green, and a bright yellow.

No matter what ...she always went to and chose the red... Out of the bunch or if separated from the others.

Her red ball was always her favorite.

Wonder why that is since she could not see red,but she would the pretty blu and the pretty green?

How about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures.

Nope.   It's just that anatomical differences required a different formation for vertebrate eyes.

Who knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

YE creationists, apparently.   How you guys got that idea, it's hard to say.  Not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence.

Actually, we're seeing some changes:
Tetrachromacy is thought to be rare among human beings. Research shows that it's more common in women than in men. A 2010 study suggests that nearly 12 percent of women may have this fourth color perception channel.

Men aren't as likely to be tetrachromats. Men are actually more likely to be color blind or unable to perceive as many colors as women. This is due to inherited abnormalities in their cones.
https://www.healthline.com/health/tetrachromacy

As you see, the evidence clearly shows the evolution of eyes by gradual stages.   In some phyla, there are even living examples.  No point in denying the facts.

Complexity can arise within a cell, too, because our molecular machinery makes mistakes. On occasion, it duplicates sections of DNA, entire genes, and even whole chromosomes, and these small changes to our genetic material can have dramatic effects. We saw how mutations can lead to a wide variety of phenotypic traits when we looked at how artificial selection has shaped dogs. These molecular accidents can even lead to complete innovation, like the various adaptations of flowering plants that I talked about in my last Evolution post. And as these innovations accumulate, species diverge, losing the ability to reproduce with each other and filling new roles in the ecosystem. While the creatures we know now might seem unfathomably intricate, they are the product of billions of years of slight variations accumulating.

Of course, while I focused this post on how complexity arose, it's important to note that more complex doesn't necessarily mean better. While we might notice the eye and marvel at its detail, success, from the viewpoint of an evolutionary lineage, isn't about being the most elaborate. Evolution only leads to increases in complexity when complexity is beneficial to survival and reproduction. Indeed, simplicity has its perks: the more simple you are, the faster you can reproduce, and thus the more offspring you can have. Many bacteria live happy simple lives, produce billions of offspring, and continue to thrive, representatives of lineages that have survived billions of years. Even complex organisms may favor less complexity - parasites, for example, are known for their loss of unnecessary traits and even whole organ systems, keeping only what they need to get inside and survive in their host. Darwin referred to them as regressive for seemingly violating the unspoken rule that more complex arises from less complex, not the other way around. But by not making body parts they don't need, parasites conserve energy, which they can invest in other efforts like reproduction.When we look back in an attempt to grasp evolution, it may instead be the lack of complexity, not the rise of it, that is most intriguing.

Who knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

Quit playing the idiot. It is the article being critiqued suggesting the same, not me or creationists, as you well know.

Actually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all.

Who knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

YE creationists, apparently.   How you guys got that idea, it's hard to say.  Not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence.

Our eyes, as well as those of octopuses and fish, took a different approach than those of the arthropods, putting photo receptors into a pit, thus creating what is referred to as a camera-style eye. In the fossil record, eyes seem to emerge from eyeless predecessors rapidly, in less than 5 million years. But is it really possible that an eye like ours arose so suddenly? Yes, say biologists Dan-E. Nilsson and Susanne Pelger. They calculated a pessimistic guess as to how long it would take for small changes - just 1% improvements in length, depth, etc per generation - to turn a flat eyespot into an eye like our own. Their conclusion? It would only take about 400,000 years - a geological instant.

Quit playing the idiot. It is the article being critiqued suggesting the same, not me or creationists, as you well know.

Nope.  It doesn't say that in the article.  It's your idea, not theirs.

On the transitional tetrachromats turning up among humans:

Actually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all.

Evidence shows we are:
In one study they found that most women with this condition did not demonstrate tetrachromacy on color vision tests – they still functionally were trichromats. This is likely due to the fact that the cones were not different enough. Although some hypothesize that the optic nerve or perhaps the brain combines the information from these distinct cones and treats them as one stream of color information. However, going against this hypothesis is the fact that 1 in 24 such women (according to one study) demonstrated four-dimensional (or tetrachromatic) color vision. This means that the optic nerve is capable of carrying tetrachromatic vision and the brain is capable of interpreting it.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/tetrachromacy-in-humans/

So the evolving tetrochromat vision depends on mutations involving one of the three existing cone types, producing two where there used to be just one.

Actually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all. It is not possible for you to know what was going on with the above until very recently when such things could even be known about or understood. You also have no idea how many other slight "changes" or variations may have taken place throughout the history of humanity which never amounted to anything, for the same reason. No one knew, understood, or even cared about such. If they did, few if any records survived from the apparent advanced civilizations that would have known such, which I do not believe your theory or you even allow for. As is always the case with evolutionists, you presume so very much about the past, in support of the very high regard you have for your observations of the present. We do not all share that very high regard though.

February 20, 2020

Source:University of Copenhagen

Summary:By measuring iron isotopes, researchers have shown that our planet originally formed much faster than previously thought. This finding provides new insights on both planetary formation and the likelihood of water and life elsewhere in the universe.

The precursor of our planet, the proto-Earth, formed within a time span of approximately five million years, shows a new study from the Centre for Star and Planet Formation (StarPlan) at the Globe Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

On an astronomical scale, this is extremely fast, the researchers explain.
If you compare the solar system's estimated 4.6 billion years of existence with a 24-hour period, the new results indicate that the proto-Earth formed in what corresponds to about a minute and a half.....................

UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago — 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.

The research is published today in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking," said Mark Harrison, co-author of the research and a professor of geochemistry at UCLA. 

"Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously," added Harrison, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. "With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly."............

: The Barbarian  Sat Mar 21, 2020 - 15:45:28
I never met a man or woman, who wasn't in some manner superior to me.  Unless we're hopelessly narcissistic, we all know this is true of all of us. 

And "ignorant" is a relative thing.   I'm rather ignorant of metallurgy, for example, but I probably know more about it than most people do, since I have some understanding of chemistry and physics beyond an introductory college course level.

Not long ago, I learned some things I didn't know about construction from someone here.    There's a secret to appearing to know everything:
Only talk about things you know.

Boring, but safe, if you want to appear to know it all.

'We need to rethink evolution': Animal kingdom is OLDER than previously thought and scientists need to look further back in time to understand the diversity of species on Earth


Scientists say the older ideas on early animal evolution may need to be revised
Research suggests the animal kingdom is much older than previously thought
It was diversifying well before the Cambrian explosion 541 million years ago
Dr Jennifer Hoyal Cuthill explains why animals on Earth are being re-examined

English naturalist Charles Darwin published the 'Origin Of Species' more than 150 years ago.

Darwinian evolution is a prominent scientific theory which describes how lifeforms develop through a process known as natural selection.

However, the latest research suggests some of the widely-accepted ideas around how animal species evolved on Earth need to be revised.

The latest findings suggest the animal kingdom we occupy is much older than previously thought and was diversifying well before previous estimates, which placed the arrival of most animal species during the Cambrian explosion 541 million years ago.......................................

Amoebas diversified much earlier than thought

Amoebas diversified at least 750 million years ago, far earlier than previously thought, researchers have revealed.

The finding, from a team led by Daniel Lahr of the University of São Paulo in Brazil, challenges existing theory about life during the time. Known as the late Precambrian period, it was thought to feature only a small number of unicellular lineages, including undifferentiated proto-amoebae and photosynthetic algae known as stromatolites.

The new study revealed eight new ancestral lineages of Thecamoebae, the largest group in the amoeba domain. This newly discovered diversity has implications for understanding how microorganisms evolved on Earth.

"We show that diversification apparently already existed in the Precambrian and that it probably occurred at the same time as ocean oxygenation," says Lahr.................................

Evidence that ancient farms had very different origins than previously thought

It's an idea that could transform our understanding of how humans went from small bands of hunter-gatherers to farmers and urbanites. Until recently, anthropologists believed cities and farms emerged about 9,000 years ago in the Mediterranean and Middle East. But now a team of interdisciplinary researchers has gathered evidence showing how civilization as we know it may have emerged at the equator, in tropical forests. Not only that, but people began altering their environments for food and shelter about 30,000 years earlier than we thought.

For centuries, archaeologists believed that ancient people couldn't live in tropical jungles. The environment was simply too harsh and challenging, they thought. As a result, scientists simply didn't look for clues of ancient civilizations in the tropics. Instead, they turned their attention to the Middle East, where we have ample evidence that hunter-gatherers settled down in farming villages 9,000 years ago during a period dubbed the "Neolithic revolution." Eventually, these farmers' offspring built the ziggurats of Mesopotamia and the great pyramids of Egypt. It seemed certain that city life came from these places and spread from there around the world...................

: The Barbarian  Sun Mar 22, 2020 - 11:46:53
Part of the problem is that jungles tend to erase human activity rather rapidly.    One interesting bit of evidence suggests that marijuana might have been the first cultivated crop...

Cannabis plants are believed to have evolved on the steppes of Central Asia, specifically in the regions that are now Mongolia and southern Siberia, according to Warf. The history of cannabis use goes back as far as 12,000 years, which places the plant among humanity's oldest cultivated crops, according to information in the book "Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years" (Springer, 1980).
https://www.livescience.com/48337-marijuana-history-how-cannabis-travelled-world.html

Although we usually think of evolution as taking thousands of years to occur, sometimes it can occur quite quickly. In this lesson, we'll look at evidence for rapid evolution and examine how this process can lead to speciation.

What Is Rapid Evolution?

What comes to mind when you think of evolution? You might be thinking of the famous transition between dinosaurs and birds that took place millions of years ago, or the common ancestor that led to both humans and modern apes. These examples took place over millions of years, leading many scientists to believe that evolution is a very slow process.

However, scientists are finding more and more examples of rapid evolution, or evolution that happens over a few generations. Although a few generations might seem like a long time to the average person, in terms of evolution, this is incredibly fast change.

Scientists are seeing this happen in particular in populations that are exposed to human intervention. For example, many types of insects are being exposed to insecticides. Rapid evolution is taking place that is creating new, insecticide resistant populations of organisms within just a few generations.

Similarly, bacteria populations can evolve in just hours of being exposed to antibiotics. The new antibiotic resistant populations of bacteria are of serious concern for medicine. It's not just small organisms like bacteria or insects that are going through rapid evolution either. Populations of Chinook salmon are experiencing rapid evolution towards a small body size as they experience pressure from hunting, and the Atlantic killifish is evolving resistance to pollutants that would normally kill fish in the area in just a few generations.

Evolution like this can lead to speciation, or the formation of new species, in just a few generations. Today, we're going to look at some of the first experiments that documented rapid evolution and subsequent speciation.

Geographic Isolation of Fruit Flies

In 1989, Diane Dodd published one of the first accounts of rapid speciation by studying fruit flies in the laboratory. Dodd and her colleagues collected fruit flies from a natural population in Bryce Canyon, Utah. In the lab, she separated the fruit flies into two populations, modeling a natural phenomenon known as geographic isolation.

During geographic isolation, one species becomes separated by a physical barrier, such as a lake or canyon, into two separate populations. Over time, different traits are selected for, and the populations change in such a way that they can no longer interbreed if they are reunited, thus forming two unique species. Geographic isolation is a common mechanism of speciation in natural populations.

The two fruit fly populations were kept in separate cages and were given different food substrates. One population was given a starch-based medium to eat, and the other was given a maltose-based medium to eat. Dodd kept the fruit flies in these separate cages with the different mediums for several generations. Each medium is somewhat stressful to the fruit flies and requires changes in their genetic adaptation to be successful. For example, the starch-based medium flies increased Amylase activity in their gut, which was necessary to break down the starch. Dodd took this as evidence that there was a genetic change in the populations.

To confirm the divergence, Dodd then mixed the two populations and looked for interbreeding about one year after the initial separation. However, when the two populations were mixed, she noticed a mating preference for flies that were grown on the same media. The geographic isolation had created genetic changes in the population that prevented the two fly populations from mating, creating reproductive isolation. Over time, this would lead to a greater isolation and divergence of the two populations into unique species.

: Rella  Sat Apr 04, 2020 - 15:47:16
Barbarian,

Questions please.

What was the very first living organism(?) that evolvedinto another, then another?

Did this original organism(?) (if that is the correct term) start the evolution into all things over the multiple megaannums,  gigaannums, or even teraannums ............?

I am taking a general assumption that plant organisms only evlove plants and that animal organisms
follow the animal kingdom?

I am simply curious about the origins ... as in original origins of what the scientific community has to say about such.

: Amo  Sat Apr 04, 2020 - 14:02:26
Again, change, evolution is not.

The theory of evolution incorporates change into its deep time scenario of simple to complex life through mutations.

That being described above is not change due to mutations, but rather change by way of adaption to a changing environment.

The catalyst is the changing environment, not mutation.

One would think such changes probably begin in the immune systems which God placed within His creatures to address the problems of changing environment.

Creatures apparently already have the built in ability to adapt and change.

This of course is more likely to be the result of design than random chance.

Apparently all life has always had the ability to change or adapt to the changes which occur in their environment. This is observable scientific fact in that we observe many changes between todays plants and animals, and those of the past, including a widespread reduction in size alone in the fossil record.

As is unquestionably obvious, the earths environment in the past supported plants and animals of a much larger size and variety than now exists.

Though evolutionists do understand that all change is not from simple to more complex according to the evidence, their theory is completely dependent upon change from simple to complex.

Which of course the theory of natural biological random chance evolution is.

No divergence of the two populations into unique species was or has been observed.

: The Barbarian  Sun Apr 05, 2020 - 13:49:33
Evidence suggests a prokaryote, a chemical autotroph, around undersea volcanic vents.

In 1993, before alkaline vents were actually discovered, geochemist Michael Russell from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, US, suggested a mechanism by which life could have started at such vents.1 His ideas, updated in 2003,2 suggest life came from harnessing the energy gradients that exist when alkaline vent water mixes with more acidic seawater (the early oceans were thought to contain more carbon dioxide than now).

This mirrors the way that cells harness energy. Cells maintain a proton gradient by pumping protons across a membrane to create a charge differential from inside to outside. Known as the proton-motive force, this can be equated to a difference of about 3 pH units. It's effectively a mechanism to store potential energy and this can then be harnessed when protons are allowed to pass through the membrane to phosphorylate adenosine diphosphate (ADP), making ATP.

Russell's theory suggests that pores in the hydrothermal vent chimneys provided templates for cells, with the same 3 pH unit difference across the thin mineral walls of the interconnected vent micropores that separate the vent and sea water. This energy, along with catalytic iron nickel sulfide minerals, allowed the reduction of carbon dioxide and production of organic molecules, then self-replicating molecules, and eventually true cells with their own membranes.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrothermal-vents-and-the-origins-of-life/3007088.article

Life brought forth by the Earth.  Who would have guessed?

Evidence from extremely old rocks suggests that it happened surprisingly quickly after the Earth cooled and oceans formed.

Prokaryotes existed for an extremely long time before nucleated cells, which led to fungi, plants, and animals.

The real key, I think is that in cellular life, the one absolutely essential organelle, is the one that is most simple.    The cell membrane is basically a phospholipid bilayer that spontaneously self-assembles into enclosed cells.

: Rella  Sun Apr 05, 2020 - 14:18:06

So simply stating, life came into being with no acknowledged creator?

: The Barbarian  Sun Apr 05, 2020 - 16:07:18
God says that the Earth brought forth living things.   All the evidence so far, supports Him.    Which is not surprising.   You might as well ask if hurricanes form with no acknowledged Creator.    What does that even mean?

The following make me shake my head.

There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a "missing link" along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent.

In other words it is an assumption.

They continue:
In fact, the human "family tree" may be better described as a "family bush," within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

I find it of interest that within the link I posted they say it is theory that we have a common ancestor that they cannot prove.

2nd.  We are given a specific explanation of how God created Adam and breathed life into his nostrils. Either this is a lie if we came from even an evolutionery bush
or science has it wrong about us. Our HomoSapien lineage.

3rd.  If science got it right...then at what point, during the thousands to million of years and before... as Homo Sapiens were coming into their own.... did God decide that man, as in homo sapiens,  that man would be offered eternal life and He would send His Son to die for our sins so we may be saved and live?

That was not  315,000 years ago or earlier.

The Museum of Forbidden Archeology

"If we imagine the history of humanity as giant museum, containing all knowledge on this topic, then we shall find that several of the rooms of this museum have been locked. Scientists have locked away the facts that contradict the generally accepted picture of history. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson have, however, opened many of the locked doors and allowed laymen as well as scientists to see inside. Even scientists have been influenced, and rightly so. The Hidden History of the Human Race compels the world of science to enter new territories and calls into question many revered theories about humanity and human history."

-Walter J. Langbein
PARA Magazine, Austria

Anomalous Discoveries From The California Gold Mine

In 1849, gold was discovered in the gravels of ancient riverbeds on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in central California, drawing hordes of rowdy adventurers to places like Brandy City, Last Chance, Lost Campe, You Bet, and Poker Flat. Occasionally, the miners would find stone artifacts, and more rarely, human fossils.

Altogether, miners found hundreds of stone implements - mortars, pestles, platters, grinders, and so forth. Many of the specimens found their way into the collection of Mr. C.D. Voy, a part-time employee of the California Geological Survey. Voy's collection eventually came into the possession of the University of California, and the most significant artifacts were reported to the scientific community by J.D. Whitney, then the state geologist of California.

J.D. Whitney thought the geological evidence indicated the auriferous--or gold-bearing-- gravels, and the sophisticated stone tools found in them, were at least Pliocene in age. But modern geologists think some of the gravel deposits, which lie beneath volcanic formations, are much older.

The Age of the Auriferous Gravels

The majority of gold-bearing gravels were laid down in stream channels during the Eocene and Early Oligocene. During the Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene, volcanic activity in the same region covered some of the auriferous gravels with deposits of rhyolite, andesite, and latite.

In particular, widespread andesitic mudflows and conglomerates were deposited during the Miocene. These attained a considerable thickness, varying from more than 3,000 feet along the crest of the Sierras to 500 feet in the foothills. The volcanic flows were so extensive that they almost completely buried the bedrock landscape of the northern Sierra Nevada mountain region.

Over the course of time, rivers carved deep channels up to a couple of thousand feet below the level of the prevolcanic gravels. This allowed Gold Rush miners to reach the auriferous gravels by digging horizontal tunnels into the sides of the channels. The advanced stone tools found in these tunnels could be from Eocene to Pliocene in age. California State Geologist J. D. Whitney (above) concluded that modern man existed in California previous to the cessation of volcanic activity in the Sierra Nevada.

Anomalous Finds at Tuolumne Table Mountain

Finds from mine shafts can be dated more securely than those from hydraulic mines and surface deposits of gravel. Many shafts were sunk at Table Mountain in Tuolumne County. Whitney and others reported that miners found stone tools and human bones there, in the gold-bearing gravels sealed beneath thick layers of a volcanic material called latite.

Discoveries from the auriferous gravels just above the bedrock are probably 33.2 to 55 million years old. The more important discoveries from Table Mountain add up to a considerable weight of evidence. J.D. Whitney personally examined a collection belonging to Dr. Snell, consisting of stone spoons, handles, spearheads, and a human jaw - all found in the auriferous gravels beneath the latite cap of Tuolumne Table Mountain. Whitney remarked that all the human fossils uncovered in the gold-mining region, including this one, were of the anatomically modern type.

Writing 11 years before the discovery of the Java ape-man, Pithecanthropus erectus, Whitney concluded that,

"Man, thus far, is nothing but man, whether found in Pliocene, Post-Pliocene, or recent formations."

Mortar and Pestle from Table Mountain

This mortar and pestle were found by J.H. Neale in tertiary deposits dating 33-55 million years old.

On August 2, 1890, J.H. Neale signed the following statement about his discoveries:

"In 1877 Mr. J.H. Neale was superintendent of the Montezuma tunnel Company, and ran the Montezuma tunnel into the gravel underlying the lava of Table Mountain, Tuolumne County.... At a distance of between 1400 and 1500 feet from the mouth of the tunnel, or of between 200 and 300 feet beyond the edge of the solid lava, Mr. Neale saw several spear-heads, of some dark rock and nearly one foot in length. On exploring further, he himself found a small mortar three or four inches in diameter and of irregular shape. This was discovered within a foot or two of the spear-heads. He then found a large well-formed pestle....

"...Mr. Neale declares that it is utterly impossible that these relics can have reached the position in which they were found excepting at the time the gravel was deposited, and before the lava cap formed. There was not the slightest trace of any disturbance of the mass or of any natural fissure into it by which access could have been obtained either there or in the neighborhood."

The Calaveras Skull

The most notorious fossil discovered in the Gold Rush mines of California was the Calaveras skull. In February 1866, Mr. Mattison, the principal owner of the mine on Bald Hill, near Angels Creek, removed this fossilized skull from a layer of gravel 130 feet below the surface. The gravel was near the bedrock, underneath several distinct layers of volcanic material.

It was examined by J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, who presented a report on the Calaveras skull to the California Academy of Sciences on July 16, 1866, affirming that it was found in Pliocene strata. This discovery caused a huge sensation in America and many believed it was a hoax.

Broken stone pestle from Table Mountain

In 1891, George F. Becker told the American Geological Society that in the spring of 1869, Clarence King, director of the Survey of the Fortieth Parallel, and a respected geologist, was conducting research at Tuolumne Table Mountain.

Becker stated :

"At one point, close to the high bluff of basalt capping, a recent wash had swept away all talus and exposed the underlying compact, hard, auriferous gravel beds, which were beyond all question in place. In examining the exposure for fossils, he [King] observed the fractured end of what appeared to be a cylindrical mass of stone. The mass he forced out of its place with considerable difficulty on account of the hardness of the gravel in which it was tightly wedged. It left behind a perfect cast of itself in the matrix and proved to be part of a polished stone implement, no doubt a pestle."

Becker added:

"Mr. King is perfectly sure this implement was in place and that it formed an original part of the gravels in which he found it. It is difficult to imagine a more satisfactory evidence than this of the occurrence of implements in the auriferous, pre-glacial, sub-basaltic gravels."

From this description and the modern geological dating of the Table Mountain strata, it is apparent that the object was over 9 million years old.

William H. Holmes Challenges J.D. Whitney

Some of the Calaveras skull hoax stories were propagated by scientists such as William H. Holmes, anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution. Upon examining the actual Calaveras skull at the Peabody Museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he concluded that,

"the skull was never carried and broken in a Tertiary torrent, that it never came from the old gravels in the Mattison mine, and that it does not in any way represent a Tertiary race of men."

Holmes also discredited Whitney's dating of anomalous stone tools discovered at the California gold mines, asserting they were from the local Digger Indians. One might ask why Holmes and others were so determined to discredit Whitney's evidence for the existence of Tertiary humans. The following statement by Holmes provides an essential clue:

"If these forms are really of Tertiary origin, we have here one of the greatest marvels yet encountered by science; and perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood to-day, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted."

In other words, if the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an imposing array of them, must go.

: The Barbarian  Sun Apr 05, 2020 - 19:57:00
.



Or it's an allegory for God giving man an immortal soul apart from evolution.   One of those. 

If it is an allegory the entire written word of scriptures can be considered as such. You can't pick and chose what is real or
in there as example just to suit a given belief.

Do you believe that man has an immortal soul?

Do you believe he received it 40,000 years ago? "There were humans essentially identical to us, about 40,000 years ago."

But we don't know which kind of human Adam happened to be.  

YOU are a decendent from Adam. what kind of human are you? Or is it your contention that interbreeding such as with Neanderthals after Adam's creation would change that? 

: Rella  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 08:04:42
Is it not possible, given that nothing is provable, that Adam could have been created divinely unique? And at a later time in God's plan?

Does he HAVE to be linked with others ?

: Amo  Sun Apr 05, 2020 - 21:17:50
http://morien-institute.org/anomalies.html

Interesting article addressing more problematic discoveries disrupting the current prevalent evolutionary and historical narratives. A particular point of interest brought up in the article, suggests that many of the finds seeming to indicate a primitive humanity, may be the result of humanities recoveries after catastrophic events which destroyed their societies and technology.

Thus leaving a record of the primitive instruments used for survival while rebuilding societies and tech., rather than the scenario postulated by those seeking only to establish the evolutionary theory with evidence being interpreted according to the same.

The flood scenario unquestionably details an event which would require rebuilding societies starting from scratch. As no doubt several other catastrophic events which followed would as well.

: The Barbarian  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 09:02:47
If so, it's hard to understand why God would rig it so it looked like Adam was descended from other homninins.

Since God is truth, it seems unlikely that He would fake evidence.

: The Barbarian  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 09:06:47
The problem is evidence.   You don't have any.   

It all comes down to evidence.   Or lack of it, in this case.

: Rella  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 15:48:28

Right back at you.

: Alan  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 16:39:34

This is where the discussion continues to go around in circles. There IS a plethora of evidence to support common decent, it's just that some people refuse to accept that evidence as the undisputed truth.

: Rella  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 15:41:58
Why would you say God rigged it tolook like Adam was descended?

What evidence?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

: Rella  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 18:18:47
I accept within reason.

I do not accept when it comes to Adam.

Quote from: Rella on Yesterday at 15:41:58
Why would you say God rigged it tolook like Adam was descended?

What evidence?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

For example, the numerous fossil transitional forms between other hominins and modern humans, cited by YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, as "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

But also genetics, which shows humans and chimpanzees to be more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.   And evolutionary development, which shows how genes like NOTCH2NL are associated with rapid brain growth in human species, but not other hominins:
https://www.hhmi.org/news/meet-three-new-genes-may-have-influenced-human-brain-size       

: Alan  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 16:39:34

This is where the discussion continues to go around in circles. There IS a plethora of evidence to support common decent, it's just that some people refuse to accept that evidence as the undisputed truth.

: The Barbarian  Mon Apr 06, 2020 - 18:38:46
Interestingly, neither did the man who co-discovered the mechanism of evolution with Darwin.   Alfred Russel Wallace independently  discovered natural selection, just as Darwin was about to publish his book.   Darwin invited him to join him in announcing the discovery, and considered Wallace to be the co-discoverer of natural selection.

Wallace resisted the idea that evolution could include man, and insisted that a unique intervention by God was necessary.

: Texas Conservative  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 08:12:04
Because it is not the undisputed truth.  Any real scientist should also concede it is not the undisputed truth.  If they don't, they have a theology in common descent instead of just scientific knowledge.

: The Barbarian  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 08:57:53
In the sense that gravitation isn't undisputed truth.   In fact, evolution is more solidly established than gravity.  We know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

: Texas Conservative  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 09:01:53
Now you are mixing terms common descent and evolution in order to prove your point.

: The Barbarian  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 13:18:07
Nope.  In fact, you just confused the two.   You confused evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) with consequences of evolution (common descent).   

You are great at obfuscation, albeit probably unintentionally.

It appears that you similarly confused microgravitation with macrogravitation.  Everyone knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun.   We can directly observe it.   But no one has ever observed the Solar System revolve around the galaxy center.    You're good at obfuscation.

: The Barbarian  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 08:56:21
Adam stands alone, because while his body was produced from nature, his soul was given directly by God, as is the soul of every one of us.

: Texas Conservative  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 13:46:40
You replied to my reply of Alan's post.  The term used was common descent.

I didn't change terms, you did.

I didn't even mention gravity or respond to your use of gravity.

Try harder next time. 

: The Barbarian  Tue Apr 07, 2020 - 20:48:15
Yes, you confused it with evolutionary theory.   Common descent is a consequence of evolution, not evolution.  And evolutionary theory is the theory that describes and explains the observed phenomenon of evolution.   You probably should know that many creationist organizations like the ICR and AIG admit to a certain amount of common descent, usually including new species, genera, and families of organisms, and sometimes more.    They can hardly deny the fact, since genetics clearly shows common descent.  And we can test that by looking at organisms of known descent.

But it's not evolution.  It's the result of evolution.

Just pointing out that you confused the two.


Yes.  I used gravity as an example, because most creationists aren't upset by gravity.      Both gravity and evolution are observed phenomena, even if all of the consequences of those phenomena are not directly observed.

No problem; I'm a very patient guy.

: Texas Conservative  Wed Apr 08, 2020 - 08:21:07
If you have reading comprehension and actually read what I wrote, you would find in my reply to Alan I used the same term he did.  I did not mention evolution.  Therefore, no confusion of the two.  I was precise on purpose.

: The Barbarian  Wed Apr 08, 2020 - 09:23:34
You didn't mention gravity, either.   I gave you two more examples of phenomena that are not "proven";  I see now that you conflated evolution with common descent.   I suppose you did because it seems similar to you.

Just to make this clear, neither gravity nor evolution are common descent.   I merely used those examples to show you that science never "proves"anything.   Science is essentially inductive, so you can't prove anything thereby.    You can have logical certainty (which is what "proof"is) only when you know all the rules and can deduce from particulars.    In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules.

I realize now, you assumed I was equating evolution and gravity with common descent.  Neither is common descent.

: The Barbarian  Wed Apr 08, 2020 - 11:20:51
And we have meltdown.   

: Texas Conservative  Wed Apr 08, 2020 - 11:23:22
Another assumption.  You are bad at this.  I am just blunt.

: The Barbarian  Wed Apr 08, 2020 - 16:15:06
And a certified genius.   

::lookaround::

: Rella  Wed Apr 08, 2020 - 18:53:45
I have often heard that  scientists have found there is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes. ????

New research suggests Earth was created in a fraction of the time scientists previously thought it formed, suggesting that rapidly forming planets could exist elsewhere.

Conventional thinking suggested the early Earth was formed through the random collision of large planetary bodies through time. As these planetary bodies slammed into one another, they combined to eventually form Earth over a time period of tens of millions of years.

New research, published in Science Advances, suggests the formation of Earth was through a different and faster mechanism. Researchers estimate this took place over approximately 5 million years, extremely fast in astronomical timescales.

The research team analyzed the iron composition of Earth's interior and compared it to extraterrestrial bodies. What they found was that the composition of Earth was very similar to the composition of a specific type of meteorite, CI chondrites........................

Abstract

Earth's volatile element abundances (for example, sulfur, zinc, indium and lead) provide constraints on fundamental processes, such as planetary accretion, differentiation and the delivery of volatile species, like water, which contributed to Earth becoming a habitable planet. The composition of the silicate Earth suggests a chemical affinity but isotopic disparity to carbonaceous chondrites—meteorites that record the early element fractionations in the protoplanetary disk. However, the volatile element depletion pattern of the silicate Earth is obscured by core formation. Another key problem is the overabundance of indium, which could not be reconciled with any known chondrite group. Here we complement recently published volatile element abundances for carbonaceous chondrites with high-precision sulfur, selenium and tellurium data. We show that both Earth and carbonaceous chondrites exhibit a unique hockey stick volatile element depletion pattern in which volatile elements with low condensation temperatures (750–500 K) are unfractionated from each other. This abundance plateau accounts for the apparent overabundance of indium in the silicate Earth without the need of exotic building materials or vaporization from precursors or during the Moon-forming impact and suggests the accretion of 10–15 wt% CI-like material before core formation ceased. Finally, more accurate estimates of volatile element abundances in the core and bulk Earth can now be provided.

The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects

SUMMARY: The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and muddy water into space. As rocks moved farther from Earth, Earth's gravity became less significant to them, and the gravity of nearby rocks became increasingly significant. Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor that produced aerobraking, merged to become asteroids. (Isolated rocks in space are meteoroids.) Drag forces caused by water vapor and thrust forces produced by the radiometer effect concentrated most smaller asteroids in what is now the asteroid belt. Larger asteroids were acted by more powerful radiometer forces, which pushed them out beyond Neptune's orbit, where they became trans-Neptunian objects. All the so-called "mavericks of the solar system" (asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects) resulted from the explosive events as the flood began.


Asteroids, also called minor planets, are rocky bodies orbiting the Sun. Ninety percent of them have orbits between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, a region called the asteroid belt. The largest asteroid, Ceres, is almost 600 miles in diameter and has about one-third the volume of all other asteroids combined. Precise orbital details are known for some 625,000 asteroids.3 Some that cross Earth's orbit might do great damage if they ever collided with Earth.

Textbooks give two explanations for the origin of asteroids: (1) they are the remains of an exploded planet, and (2) a planet failed to evolve completely. Experts recognize the problems with each explanation and are puzzled. The hydroplate theory offers a simple and complete—but quite different—solution that also answers other questions.

Exploded-Planet Explanation.  Smaller asteroids are more numerous than larger asteroids, a pattern typical of fragmented bodies. Seeing this pattern led to the early belief that asteroids are the remains of an exploded planet. Later, scientists realized that all asteroids combined would not form one small planet.4 Besides, too much energy is needed to explode and scatter even the smallest planet.  [See Item 21 on page 331.]

Failed-Planet Explanation.  The most popular explanation today for asteroids is that they are bodies that did not merge to become a planet. Never explained is how, in nearly empty space, matter merged to become these rocky bodies in the first place,5 why rocky bodies started to form a planet but stopped,6 or why it happened primarily between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Also, because only vague explanations have been given for how planets formed, any claim to understand how one planet failed to form lacks credibility. [See Items 43–46 on pages 30– 33.] Orbiting rocks do not merge to become planets or asteroids unless special conditions are present, which the hydroplate theory provides. [See page 321 and Endnote 18 on page 338.] Today, collisions fragment and scatter asteroids, just the opposite of this  "failed-planet explanation." During the 4,600,000,000 years evolutionists say asteroids have existed, asteroids would have had so many collisions that they should be much more fragmented than they are today.7

Hydroplate Explanation.  The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and water from Earth.8 Water droplets launched into space partially evaporated and quickly froze. Large rocks had large gravitational spheres of influence which grew as the rocks traveled away from Earth. The largest rocks became "seeds" around which ice particles, smaller rocks, and gas molecules collected gravitationally. Aerobraking by that gas, collapsed much of the mass around those "seed rocks," forming asteroids. [See page 314.]

The size distribution of asteroids shows that at least part of a planet fragmented, but no known energy source is available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet. [See item 21 on page 331.] However, the eruption of so much supercritical water (explained on page 129) from the subterranean chambers could have launched a small percent of the Earth. Astronomers have tried to describe the exploded planet, not realizing they were standing on the remaining 97 ±1% of it—too close to see it.

As floodwaters escaped from the subterranean chambers, pillars were crushed, because they were forced to carry more and more of the weight of the overlying crust. Also, the almost 60-mile-high walls of the rupture were unstable, because rock is not strong enough to support a cliff more than 5 miles high. As lower portions of the walls crumbled, blocks—some a staggering 200 meters in diameter—were swept up and launched by the jetting fountains. [See Figure 5.] Unsupported rock in the top 5 miles then fragmented. The smaller the rock, the faster it accelerated, and the farther it went, just as a rapidly flowing stream carries smaller dirt particles faster and farther...............................

As already addressed in a previous post, creationists have been far ahead of evolutionists concerning the rapid formation of pour planet.

Hydroplate Explanation.  The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and water from Earth.8 Water droplets launched into space partially evaporated and quickly froze.

Failed-Planet Explanation.  The most popular explanation today for asteroids is that they are bodies that did not merge to become a planet. Never explained is how, in nearly empty space, matter merged to become these rocky bodies in the first place,5 why rocky bodies started to form a planet but stopped,6 or why it happened primarily between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

: The Barbarian  Sat Apr 11, 2020 - 11:01:53
So you're now telling us it took five million years, as your source says?    That's a significant concession for a YE creationist.

That story won't work.   You see, the energy required to throw ocean-sized masses of water into space would have to be released into the atmosphere.   Consider the amount of energy it takes to launch a few thousand pounds into orbit.  It would have evaporated all the water into a glowing gas that would have cooked the Earth.

No, that's wrong, and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the solar system knows why.  Jupiter prevented planetary formation in that zone by gravitational shepherding.

Occasionally people wonder whether the belt was made up of the remains of a destroyed planet, or a world that didn't quite get started. However, according to NASA, the total mass of the belt is less than the moon, far too small to weigh in as a planet. Instead, the debris is shepherded by Jupiter, which kept it from coalescing onto other growing planets.

https://www.space.com/16105-asteroid-belt.html

Lots of other errors therein; I can show you more if you would like to see some more.

: Amo  Sat Apr 11, 2020 - 11:56:24
I'm taking a vacation from addressing your run around and obfuscation tactics. Maybe later.

: Amo  Sat Apr 11, 2020 - 20:30:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o

Good video about the fossil record being far more in line with the flood scenario than an evolutionary scenario. You should like this one Barbarian, it is by your favorite Creationist to quote suggesting he believes in evolution, Kurt Wise.