Mites in Amber Stymie Evolutionists

By -
People who believe in deep time and particles-to-paleontologist evolution are not having success when studying amber. This tree resin trapped insects and other critters long ago, which trapped and encased them. It is an excellent way of preserving them, and has been friendly to biblical creation science and provided evidence for a young earth.
Mites preserved in amber are dated at 230 million Darwin years but there is no real difference between them and the ones living today.
Credit: Freeimages/Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski
Many people are familiar with amber in jewellery, and some are fascinated by seeing bugs in it. Of course, uncluttered amber can also be mounted on a ring or in a necklace. They are told and pass along the secularists' claim that the amber is millions of years old, but that is based on tendentious interpretations of data and spurious dating methods.

 Mites were found in amber, and they were dated at 230 million Darwin years. Problem is, there wasn't any appreciable change between them and their modern counterparts. This is where Darwinists circle the wagons and cry, "Stasis!" That is, things did not evolve because they didn't have to — which is a ridiculous rescuing device that actually falsifies evolution. Secularists cannot change the fact that the earth was created recently and there is no evidence for evolution, try as they mite.
Amber (fossilized tree resin) has been known to entomb many things, including ants, ‘gladiator’ insects, crustaceans, water beetles, barnacles, oysters, clams and water striders. Evolutionists have a hard time explaining how large amber deposits formed, but a recent find is even more problematic for evolution and its long ages.
To read the rest of this short article (and you may want to check out the related articles afterward), click on "Mighty mites stifle evolutionists".


Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more