Creation scientists

[The Barbarian]

Not only do mammals appear suddenly living alongside dinosaurs,

No one with even a slight acquaintance with the fossil record would say anything that ignorant.   Mammals preceded dinosaurs.
And there is a long series of transitional forms between therapsid reptiles and mammals, long before the rise of dinosaurs.   Would you like to learn about that?   It's a really interesting series of events.

[Amo]

Sounds like a testable belief.   Let's ask some informed YE creationists about that...

Evidences for Darwin's second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

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. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Save your warnings for someone who cares about warnings from Barb, though you are of course free to do as you wish. Give me some warnings from scripture, and I will be all ears. Neither of the scientists you quoted believe in or support the theory of evolution. They simply admit, that there are few examples which could be interpreted to support evolutions claims, though nowhere near enough to actually or factually confirm it. As there should unquestionably be countless more, if evolution was true. Yes, honest Creationists do admit of their faith based views and intentions regarding their theories. Unlike many evolutionists who simply insist that their theoretical observations are simply facts because, well, they said so.

Creationists theories are based upon their faith in God's word. Random chance naturalistic evolutionists theories are based upon their faith in their own, and fallen humanities abilities of observation and conclusion separate from scripture. While Professed "Christian" evolutionists also share more faith in these same fallen human observations and conclusions, than God's word, while professing to believe God's word. Their faith is in the testimony of humanity over the testimony of scripture. So be it.

Your quotes mean nothing in their proper context, and were not, and are not meant to support the theory of evolution at all. Change happened. Simple to complex evolution remains highly unlikely. If it happened at all, it was and certainly is not sufficient to explain the world we see today, or the previous one destroyed by the global flood. Many of us think it was and is just silly to think so. 

[Amo]

No one with even a slight acquaintance with the fossil record would say anything that ignorant.   Mammals preceded dinosaurs.
And there is a long series of transitional forms between therapsid reptiles and mammals, long before the rise of dinosaurs.   Would you like to learn about that?   It's a really interesting series of events.

Yet more, because Barb said so. You even changed what was said creating a faulty premise as usual, to aid your faulty argument. Mammals along side of dinosaurs, not before them. How can anyone learn truth from one who regularly employs such deceptive tactics?

[4WD]

Unless you repent, it will not be well for you in the end.

And the "I am God" narcissist condemns another yet again. You really need to stop that.

[Alan]

Amo, please refrain from telling people they are deceiving others, and that they will be burning in hell for their beliefs. I will continue to remove those posts, and please note that it is a violation of the form rules to suggest such. We are all Christians here, and despite our differences, have the same end goals in mind.

[Amo]

And the "I am God" narcissist condemns another yet again. You really need to stop that.

What happened to the post of mine you quoted above? I can't find it to address context.

[Alan]

Yet more, because Barb said so. You even changed what was said creating a faulty premise as usual, to aid your faulty argument. Mammals along side of dinosaurs, not before them. How can anyone learn truth from one who regularly employs such deceptive tactics?

Wow, that's rich coming from a guy that has posted countless pages worth of pseudo-science. 

[Alan]

What happened to the post of mine you quoted above? I can't find it to address context.

I removed it.

[Amo]

Never mind, I see it has been censored, while words were added to my statement, which I never expressed. How lefty progressive. So be it.

Rev 21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Will you now censor the word of God as well? So much for giving the warning scripture calls us to give. I suppose it was just a matter of time. So be it.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

[Alan]

Never mind, I see it has been censored, while words were added to my statement, which I never expressed. How lefty progressive. So be it.

Which words were added to your statement?

[Alan]

Will you now censor the word of God as well? So much for giving the warning scripture calls us to give. I suppose it was just a matter of time. So be it.

Nope, but try to do your best to remember that YOU ARE NOT GOD, and injecting condemning scripture where you please is also a red flag.

[Amo]

Which words were added to your statement?

and that they will be burning in hell for their beliefs.

I don't even believe in a burning hell.

[Texas Conservative]

Nope, but try to do your best to remember that YOU ARE NOT GOD, and injecting condemning scripture where you please is also a red flag.

As long as Amo is not directly violating Rule 1.6, I don't think we should be moderating the posting of scripture.  Much of scripture is inflammatory, and if any of us is not offended at some point at what it says, we aren't reading it.

[Amo]

Nope, but try to do your best to remember that YOU ARE NOT GOD, and injecting condemning scripture where you please is also a red flag.

Nope, this is the same type of faulty premise included in many evolution arguments. I am not God, nor do I think I am. I am simply referring to what the scriptures plainly state. When I do so regarding the creation account, some evolutionists make this same claim, but it is not so. Now they are saying the same thing apparently, about anyone who will refer to the plainly stated scriptures addressing judgment, punishment, and the causes of such. There is a judgment, there is punishment, and lying is one of the main reasons or causes of them. I do not claim that I will do this, or am the standard, but rather God's word. To silence or censor all reference to the same, is to silence or censor God's word therefore. So be it.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Either there is a standard that all will be judged by, or there is not. If there is, then censoring discussion about such in order not to offend, is no different than any other form of censorship. It becomes a tool of censorship against the truth. All for our own protection of course, that our poor little feelings don't get hurt, right? It is not just the United States of the offended. It is the world of the offended. Which world is ever increasingly offended by the truth. So be it.

[4WD]

Either there is a standard that all will be judged by, or there is not.

That is certainly true, Amo.  But neither you nor your interpretations of any scripture constitute that standard.  And that is something that you apparently are unable or unwilling to acknowledge and accept.

[4WD]

As long as Amo is not directly violating Rule 1.6, I don't think we should be moderating the posting of scripture.  Much of scripture is inflammatory, and if any of us is not offended at some point at what it says, we aren't reading it.

I don't really think Alan is moderating the posting of scripture; rather he is moderating the posting of Amo's condemnation of a person for what Amo thinks is in violation of the scripture he posted.

[Alan]

I don't really think Alan is moderating the posting of scripture; rather he is moderating the posting of Amo's condemnation of a person for what Amo thinks is in violation of the scripture he posted.

Exactly! Tc didn't see the removed post, so he can't really comment on it's content.

[Amo]

Exactly! Tc didn't see the removed post, so he can't really comment on it's content.

And that is the whole point, is it not? To stifle freedom of thought and discussion which makes certain people uncomfortable. You cannot discuss, that which you cannot even see, or know about. So now, the truth of God's word concerning the very definite standard it exalts, warns about and admonishes all who believe it to warn others about as well, must be stifled so someone's feelings don't get hurt. You will not hide this truth. The more you and others attempt to do so, the more it will become obvious. As so many of you already realize and complain about on these boards which you apparently preach that only they "left" is guilty of. So who is the left now?

[4WD]

And that is the whole point, is it not? To stifle freedom of thought and discussion which makes certain people uncomfortable. You cannot discuss, that which you cannot even see, or know about. So now, the truth of God's word concerning the very definite standard it exalts, warns about and admonishes all who believe it to warn others about as well, must be stifled so someone's feelings don't get hurt. You will not hide this truth. The more you and others attempt to do so, the more it will become obvious. As so many of you already realize and complain about on these boards which you apparently preach that only they "left" is guilty of. So who is the left now?

You really seem to not understand that you are not God.  It is not up to you to condemn anyone for anything. Jesus warned against the very thing that you so often do (Luke 6:37).

[Alan]

And that is the whole point, is it not? To stifle freedom of thought and discussion which makes certain people uncomfortable. You cannot discuss, that which you cannot even see, or know about. So now, the truth of God's word concerning the very definite standard it exalts, warns about and admonishes all who believe it to warn others about as well, must be stifled so someone's feelings don't get hurt. You will not hide this truth. The more you and others attempt to do so, the more it will become obvious. As so many of you already realize and complain about on these boards which you apparently preach that only they "left" is guilty of. So who is the left now?

Whoa Nelly!! There is definitely a place for the verses you posted, but they most certainly do not fit into a disagreement on the age of the earth and how God created life. These are NOT discussions that subject a person to final judgement. Come down off that high horse and try your hardest to accept that people don't follow your road to salvation.

[Rella]

I don't even believe in a burning hell.

Can you prove it?

[Amo]

Whoa Nelly!! There is definitely a place for the verses you posted, but they most certainly do not fit into a disagreement on the age of the earth and how God created life. These are NOT discussions that subject a person to final judgement. Come down off that high horse and try your hardest to accept that people don't follow your road to salvation.

If I am on a high horse for telling people that they are in danger for not believing the word of God, then what kind of horse are you on for telling them they do not have to believe large portions of God's word? Who is really riding upon a self created high horse? The one in agreement with God's word, or the one saying it does not matter?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Do you beleive the worlds were farmed by the word of God, made with things which are not seen? Evolution and naturalism are all about one thing which may be seen turing into another. Do you beleive the world was condemned and destroyed, while Noah was saved as scripture testifies?

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Do you believe that God created the world and heavens by the breath of His mouth? That He spoke, and the things were done? If so, what need of deep time slow evolutionary development? Why must these verses and the creation account mean something that they do not say at all, nor do the scriptures say at all? Who are you to judge that none are in danger for not believing this testimony, but apparently are in danger for not believing other scriptures which you will not allow them to disbelieve or ignore? Where did this high horse you ride come from? Please do tell us exactly which scriptures you have OK'd as those which all must believe or they are in danger, and exactly why the scriptural testimony of the creation and flood accounts are not among them, thank you.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Who are you to determine that the above words from the apostle Paul are wrong concerning the creation and flood accounts of scripture? Or that they actually mean something so different from what they simply say, that they cannot be used for doctrine, reproof, or correction. Are you sure I am the one on a high horse?

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Who are you to say it is OK for evolutionists to deny the global flood, destroying the world that was, in contradiction to the above words of the apostle Peter? Again, are you sure I am the one riding a high horse? No doubt you are. Nevertheless, I am not the one telling people they don't have to bleieve these or those scriptures as they are stated, but others they must. So be it.

[Amo]

Can you prove it?

Prove what, that I don't believe in an eternal hell?

[Alan]

If I am on a high horse for telling people that they are in danger for not believing the word of God, then what kind of horse are you on for telling them they do not have to believe large portions of God's word? Who is really riding upon a self created high horse? The one in agreement with God's word, or the one saying it does not matter?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Do you beleive the worlds were farmed by the word of God, made with things which are not seen? Evolution and naturalism are all about one thing which may be seen turing into another. Do you beleive the world was condemned and destroyed, while Noah was saved as scripture testifies?

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Do you believe that God created the world and heavens by the breath of His mouth? That He spoke, and the things were done? If so, what need of deep time slow evolutionary development? Why must these verses and the creation account mean something that they do not say at all, nor do the scriptures say at all? Who are you to judge that none are in danger for not believing this testimony, but apparently are in danger for not believing other scriptures which you will not allow them to disbelieve or ignore? Where did this high horse you ride come from? Please do tell us exactly which scriptures you have OK'd as those which all must believe or they are in danger, and exactly why the scriptural testimony of the creation and flood accounts are not among them, thank you.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Who are you to determine that the above words from the apostle Paul are wrong concerning the creation and flood accounts of scripture? Or that they actually mean something so different from what they simply say, that they cannot be used for doctrine, reproof, or correction. Are you sure I am the one on a high horse?

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Who are you to say it is OK for evolutionists to deny the global flood, destroying the world that was, in contradiction to the above words of the apostle Peter? Again, are you sure I am the one riding a high horse? No doubt you are. Nevertheless, I am not the one telling people they don't have to bleieve these or those scriptures as they are stated, but others they must. So be it.

You're just flat out wrong, and I vehemently disagree with you. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Get back on topic or I'm locking the thread, folks.

[Amo]

You're just flat out wrong, and I vehemently disagree with you. 

As you have a perfect right to, of course. I would never even consider censoring you for that, even if you thought my soul was in danger for my views.

[Amo]

Get back on topic or I'm locking the thread, folks.

We're not really that far off topic. It's still about creation or evolution, just regarding the danger to one's soul either or might cause, rather than simply true or false. 

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oiYnPFM5I4

Another great video by DR. Kurt Wise. Already posted in the Giants thread, but probably should be here instead, so.

[Amo]

https://crev.info/2020/01/how-body-organs-evolved-not/

Quoted article below from link above.

How Body Organs Evolved (Not)

No Evidence of the Evolution of Body Organs and Organ Components

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

A major area of interest of mine is the problems related to the evolution of human body organs and structures, such as the lungs, bone, blood and organ components in humans. So far, my research has produced four articles on this subject and I am working on several more along the same line. A major problem is that hard parts, such as teeth and the skeleton, commonly fossilize, but tissue traits rarely do. Thus, the claim by evolutionists is that we have no evidence of the evolution of body organs and structures because of the preservation problem, not because the evolution of body organs did not occur. It must have occurred according to the orthodox Darwinian worldview. My contention is the existing evidence shows we have no evidence of the evolution of body organs because it never occurred.

Evidence of No Evolution of Body Organs from Existing Life-Forms

My conclusion that body organs and organ components could not have evolved is based on the fact that the organs of living animals display major gaps in organ and structure design. Furthermore, it has been proven extremely difficult to bridge those gaps with viable functional working systems. In addition, the animal has to survive and reproduce during the transition from, for example, gill to a lung respiratory systems. The organ system, therefore, must have been functional during the entire time of its evolution. This problem is illustrated by the fish bladder evolving into a working lung, which is the current theory of lung evolution.

Sex Cells

For example, to achieve sexually-reproductive life by evolution, mitosis must evolve into meiosis. As any freshman biology class will tell you, a chasm exists between mitosis and meiosis (see illustration). Sexual reproduction requires meiosis that produces haploid cells containing half the normal number of chromosomes, which is 23 in humans. Evolutionists propose that, after eons of time, mutations in the genes that controlled mitosis evolved mitosis into meiosis. The fact is the evolution of meiosis from mitosis is untenable, like the "What good is half-of-a-wing?" problem. Until the evolution from mitosis to meiosis is complete, life cannot reproduce sexually.

Furthermore, life must simultaneously have both systems of cell division to reproduce sexually. Otherwise it could not reproduce, which would end that gene line. Thus, functional mitosis must not mutate in the somatic cell line, but mitosis genes must mutate into meiosis in the gonadic cell line in order to evolve. The organism cannot reproduce until it has a fully functional meiosis system. Mitosis and meiosis are very different. Mitosis is a glorified straight forward copy machine. In contrast, meiosis is a functional 'creator' that produces the potential for the enormous variety of individuals, as seen everywhere in most all forms of life today – including humans.[1]

So serious is the problem of evolving meiosis by chance, that evolutionists almost uniformly ignore it. This dismissive approach is unlike that assumed by Zimmer and Emlen who readily admitted in their popular evolution textbook the following: "Given the functional uniqueness of sexual reproduction at even the most primitive level, what we will see over and over throughout this book is that such an assumed gradual process could not, in actual scientific fact, have happened."[2] I agree.

But, according to evolutionists, it must have happened! Darwinism requires that all early life reproduced by fission (thus mitosis), and later sexual reproduction evolved, requiring meiosis. All life-forms that reproduce sexually require replicators like meiosis. Sexual reproduction is a prime example of a complex adaption for which a large number of replicator substitutions would be required.[3] Furthermore, meiosis requires a host of other innovations, including transposition, imprinting, epigenetics, genetic crossing over, the topoisomerase mechanism and numerous other complex systems. All these must have evolved according to the Darwinian worldview, none of which have been explained by evolution. even by just-so stories.

An Alleged 550 Million-Year-Old Fossilized Digestive Tract

Several new discoveries are changing the problem of a lack of tissue evidence for organ and structural evolution, such as the discovery of insipient soft tissue in dinosaur bones. One of the latest examples is the discovery of what is claimed to be a 550-million-year fossilized digestive tract.[4] The fossilized digestive tract, uncovered in the Nevada desert, was described by its finders as "a key find in understanding the early history of animals on Earth." The find was an example of a Cloudina fossil, (see illustration) labeled a late Ediacaran tubular fossil known to have existed on almost every continent. They vary in size from 0.3 to 6.5 mm in diameter, and 8 to 150 mm in length. These fossils consist of a series of stacked vase-like calcite tubes.

The original mineral composition of the tube structure is unknown, but it is likely constructed of high-magnesium calcite.[5] Each cone traps a significant pore space beneath it, and stacks eccentrically into the one below like a series of cups. This results in an external ridged appearance in which the long tube design appears to be semi-flexible.

The tube discussed in the study by researchers at University of North Carolina is curved or sinuous, and its tube walls are 8 to 50 mm thick. A detailed three-dimensional reconstruction reveals that the tubes had an open base. The tube is more accurately described as a lumen. Its design may be one reason for the level of preservation found. The evolutionists claim it is a 550 million-year-old digestive tract. Assuming their dating is correct, it implies that tissues should be found in younger fossils, like 100 million and even 200 million Darwin Years.

Another possibility is that 550-million-old fossil is not nearly that old. The method of dating was not detailed in the papers I reviewed, but was largely based on the current orthodox evolutionary scenario. The problematic circular-dating method is indicated here: The life-forms in the rocks are used to date the rocks, and then these rocks are then used to date those same life-forms in them. The evolutionists claim these are the oldest 'guts' ever discovered.[6]

The authors did not discuss the fossil as evidence for evolution, partly because the organism discussed is a comparatively simple structure, but as more organisms are studied using this and other related techniques we can expect more complex organisms will be studied and this research will help us determine which view is correct; my view or that of the Darwinists.

echnology Is Critical

One reason for the advancements in soft tissue research is the improvement of a new technology, in this case the technique done in the X-ray Microanalysis lab of Schiffbauer et al., which is called micro-CT imaging. It is able to create digital 3-D images of a fossil's interior. This technique allows scientists to assess internal features in the lumen of a Cloudina fossil, and then analyze the entire fossil without damaging it.[7]

The three-dimensional image of the internal 'digestive tract' of the fossil was limited, but was the first example that showed the internal structure of the Cloudina fossil, potentially showing soft tissue in its remains. It also found that the creature's anatomical structure is much more worm-like than coral-like. Specifically, the Schiffbauer research team claim they were able to make a "detailed report of internal soft-tissue preservation within cloudinomorph fossils, and, moreover, one of the earliest reports of preserved internal anatomical structures in the fossil record."[8] Although, as is true of many (if not most) paleontological finds, drawing conclusions especially about soft tissue, are difficult. In the work done by the X-ray Microanalysis lab, Schiffbauer et al, admit there exist

"several caveats that should be considered.... First and foremost, some of these features are not uniformly representative across all of the cloudinomorphs—which should serve as a caution toward future attempts to resolve relationships within this morphotypic group. Moreover, at least some of these alleged diagnostic features (or lack thereof) may be taphonomic noise rather than primary biological signal."[9]

"Taphonomic noise" refers to distortions caused by the burial process and, in general, the effects of decay, bioturbation and biomineralization. The authors add another caution, which also is common in paleontological finds when claims about soft tissue are raised, namely "the degree of tube wall biomineralization in addition to the original biomineral chemistry has been met with differing interpretations."[10] They further add,

"To our knowledge, the structures reported herein are not only the first recognizable soft tissues in cloudinomorphs, but also the oldest guts yet described in the fossil record. As such, the Wood Canyon tubular fossil assemblage has provided a unique view into early animal anatomy. Nonetheless, for at least the cautions listed throughout the discussion above, we choose to refrain from shoehorning the cloudinomorphs into any explicit polychaete family. However, it is the sum of their parts—including the external tube structure, internal soft tissues, and presumed behavioral considerations—that may best denote placement amongst the Annelida as the most plausible."[11]

They raise these issues in spite of the fact that cloudinid taxa in general, "including the terminal Ediacaran index fossil Cloudina, are the most well-studied of these Ediacaran tubular forms due to their global palaeogeographical distribution."[12] Nonetheless, the issue here is that this new technology will ideally help researchers answer some of the questions about the evolution of organs and structures constructed out of tissues that do not normally preserve well in the fossil record, except for bone, teeth and other hard parts.

Summary

Micro-CT imaging and related techniques such as functional NMR (fNMR), will no doubt be useful to obtain details of many other biological structures. The cloudinid family is one of the most abundant small shelly fossils with mineralized skeletons in the Precambrian. This protective shell may be one reason why its inner digestive tract tract, if that's what it representes, was effectively preserved. The next step is to examine the internal structure of other life-forms.

Technological progress, such as the techniques discussed in this paper, promise to open up to examination the internal structure of organ systems remaining in fossils. Thousands of organisms preserved in amber, tar pits and ice, and other methods of tissue preservation may now be evaluated by micro-CT imaging to reveal traits of the internal structure of a wide variety of organisms. This will help open up the door to understanding the changes in organ systems in history, either supporting evolution or not. The Darwinian worldview requires all organs to have evolved from single cells to the complex organ systems observed today in the natural world.

As has repeatedly occurred in the past century, more knowledge has undermined the evolutionary position and supported the creation view. I have been very active in researching two examples. One is the view that 100 useless organs and structures exist in the human body, but which are now all acknowledged to have an important, or at the least, a very useful function.[13] A second example is the claim of poor designs in the human body, which are still touted by some as evidence of evolution. This, too, is now totally refuted by new scientific research. I expect the same result will occur from the study of organ systems.[14]

See also the analysis of the Cloudina fossil by Günter Bechly, "Did cloudinids have the guts to be worms?" at Evolution News.

[DaveW]

How Body Organs Evolved

Pipe?  Hammond?  Electronic?

[Rella]

Pipe?  Hammond?  Electronic?

Mouth, most likely.

[Amo]

Pipe?  Hammond?  Electronic?

Yes, just like human organs, designed by those with exact intent and purpose in their creation.

[Amo]

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/voices/what-were-conditions-really-like-on-early-earth

Quoted article below from link above.

What Were Conditions Really Like on Early Earth?

As a chemist, I am fascinated by the complexity of the molecules that make up life. Life can do with ease what it takes chemists in a lab a lifetime to accomplish. And what they do achieve still does not even come close to the efficiency and speed of life's designs. Proponents of evolution claim that the chemicals of life came from simpler precursors, which themselves came from basic molecules made up of just a few atoms. How we got from there to here—from simple molecules to systems of such amazing complexity that we see today—has been the subject of a lot of discussion and debate.
If I want to probe a reaction, I go into the laboratory and perform some experiments. However, it surprises me to see that when it comes to the discipline of prebiotic chemistry, people quite often take assumptions as fact and don't thoroughly test them. Researchers conduct prebiotic chemistry reactions under conditions that are designed to give the greatest chance of success. For example, rather than assess whether a reaction would take place under the conditions expected on early Earth, they instead carefully control things like the temperature and pH, as well as the concentrations of the reagents.

That is why I was so pleased to see a research article from a collaborative team from Japan and the US that reported a series of experiments to probe some reactions based around compounds containing the element sulfur under conditions that would be expected on early Earth.1 And what happened? They found that a class of compounds called thioesters, which are at the heart of many origin-of-life theories, are in fact unlikely primordial contributors.

I wanted to share a bit more about the work they performed and how, in my mind, it provides yet another example of evidence for a creator.


Testing the Conditions on Early Earth

Many of the reactions that form biological matter require enzymes that would not have existed in prebiotic times. However, the high temperatures close to volcanoes and in hydrothermal vents can plausibly overcome reaction barriers without the need for enzymes, making them widely considered likely sites for the origin of life. These reactions involve compounds like carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide but also include thioesters and thioacids, classes of compounds that contain the element sulfur. Thioesters and thioacids play an important role in origin-of-life research because they are central to many of the proposed mechanisms for primitive self-complexifying chemical cycles and the polymerization of biomolecules. Researchers think they act like an enzyme surrogate to allow for some quite complex chemical reactions to occur. However, while the chemistry of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide has received detailed attention in the context of hydrothermal vent chemistry, even the simplest thioacids and thioesters have received considerably less.

To probe the reaction chemistry of thioesters, one would have to do so under the conditions found in hydrothermal vents. This process would also include making the thioesters and their closely related cousins, thioacids, under these conditions. The simplest thioester is a compound called methyl thioacetate. The generation of this compound was the subject of the first part of the 2016 study.2 Methyl thioacetate can be made by the reaction of an acetate group with a sulfur group. Despite laboratory experiments demonstrating the production of methyl thioacetate from carbon monoxide (which goes on to make the acetate piece) and methanethiol (which goes on to make the sulfur-containing piece), evaluation of modern hydrothermal vent effluents has not provided evidence for abiotically derived (nonbiological) acetate or methanethiol. Indeed, methanol (the oxygen analog of methanethiol) does not appear to be a stable form of carbon under most hydrothermal vent conditions. This does not bode well for those who propose that methanethiol is around in significant concentrations under the same conditions.

The addition of thiols (such as methanethiol) to a class of compounds called aldehydes, followed by an oxidation reaction, is another route to thioesters like methyl thioacetate. But there is still the issue of thiol concentration (as mentioned above). Plus, the presence of significant concentrations of aldehydes is unlikely because they are not stable under the temperature and aggressive reaction chemistry conditions found in hydrothermal vents. Indeed, researchers have been unable to detect abiotic aldehydes in natural underwater hydrothermal environments. Similar arguments—namely, the inability to detect concentrations of aldehydes in these proposed origin-of-life sites–can be made for thioacids, the cousins of thioesters, the simplest example being thioacetic acid.


Getting Unexpected Results

When it comes to the reaction chemistry of thioacids and thioesters—should they be formed in significant enough quantities—another problem arises. Both classes of compounds are prone to rapid hydrolysis under the conditions found in hydrothermal vents. This means that they very rapidly react with water to make acetic acid. But if the thioacids and thioesters were supposed to be analogs of an enzyme that makes activated acetate species, they need to be around for long enough to be able to participate in those reactions, rather than to just make acetic acid.

In previous work, a 0.5% activated acetate yield was observed based on input from methanethiol and carbon monoxide. But on closer examination, and part of the critique presented in this 2016 article, the concentrations of both methanethiol and carbon monoxide used in these earlier experiments turn out to be much greater than those measured to date in natural hydrothermal vents. And not just a bit greater, but a lot greater—some 500 times for methanethiol and 3,700 times for carbon monoxide.3 In the 2016 study, even examining the behavior of thioacetic acid and methyl thioacetate concentrated far beyond that which is plausible in natural hydrothermal environments, only the hydrolysis products were observed.4

The difficulty in preparing thioesters and thioacids under hydrothermal vent conditions, and their subsequent reaction chemistry under these conditions, makes it hard to believe that they play a role in the origins of more advanced chemistry or in jumpstarting early metabolism. Modern organisms are capable of generating highly reactive compounds like thioesters internally under relatively extreme conditions by coupling their generation to other reactions in the cell and shunting them for use in other biochemical pathways before they have time to decompose. However, until thioesters were capable of being generated at reasonably steady states by relatively complex chemical assemblages, it is unlikely such compounds could have contributed to the origin or maintenance of these assemblages.

It is becoming apparent that more and more of the simple organic compounds detected in modern hydrothermal vents and, by inference, the hydrothermal vents of early Earth, are of biological origin—suggesting the work of a creator rather than random chemistry. Indeed, an increasing number of these organics have been convincingly determined to be of biological origin by a range of techniques. This 2016 report is just another chink in the armor when it comes to a nontheistic view of chemical evolution. Modern science continues to show evidence for a creator, and that is what drives me as a chemist to use my scientific background to look objectively at discoveries such as these. When I do, I see more and more evidence that I was created by God, and that I am not the result of a series of random, and sometimes dubious, chemical reactions.

[4WD]

Curious that you would post something from Reasons.org since they are definitely promoters of the Big Bang theory of creation.  Thus, Reasons hold to the evolution of the universe from its initiation with the Big Bang until now.  Reasons, however, have their own proposals for the progression for biological life, different from that of the usual evolutionary theories, but not in accordance with the YEC brand. They definitely do present God of the Bible as the author of all things but clearly different than the YEC.

[DaveW]

I always liked Big Band theory.

Especially the Dorsey brothers.