Having a Fossil Ball in Loch Torridon

If you start in London town, it takes about twelve hours to drive to Loch Torridon, a place that got Darwinists all excited about fossils that look like tiny balls. (If you go to Kelso, that is the wrong way. People who start out there, however, still have almost six hours to drive.)

Several science disciplines are involved in discussing these balls found in phosphate deposits, such as geology and biology. This ties in with their beliefs about the origin of life.

Evolutionists were excited about tiny ball-shaped fossils found near Loch Torridon. They used many assumptions and bad logic. Evidence actually fits Genesis Flood models.
Loch Torridon image credit: Freeimages / Ceitidh MacMaster
The articles we are going to examine has some technical material, and it is split in two parts.

Evolutionists make a passel of presuppositions regarding the fossils that look like balls of cells. They evosplain that they are primitive, and that the ancestor of all living things (who never receives birthday cards or phone calls) was even more primitive. Well, that part is consistent with their views.

It is becoming more frequent for scientists to find exceptionally well-preserved fossils and such, and they have technology available to make these things happen. However, such preservation doesn't fit with aquatic environments — but it does fit the rapid burial of the Genesis Flood. 

Despite what evolutionists presuppose, there is irreducible complexity involved, and no evidence of evolution in the assumed billions of years since fossilization. For them, life was more complex than they originally thought. For biblical creationists, there is no surprise.

A supposedly ancient microscopic fossil organism has been discovered in the northwest Scottish Highlands. Bicellum brasieri appear as balls of cells which were discovered in phosphate nodules in shale rocks at Loch Torridon. The organisms are believed to be a billion years old, supposedly the oldest examples of multi-cellular life forms to have evolved—not in the ocean, as previously believed, but in a fresh water lake.

The organisms are classified within the Holozoa, a clade (branch) of organisms which includes animals and single-celled organisms, but excludes fungi. However, to make such a classification, one has to assume a common ancestor to begin with. Called the LUCA (last universal common ancestor), it supposedly appeared c. 3.5–3.8 billion years ago. It is believed that such an organism evolved from non-living chemicals, through some as yet unknown process. However, these tiny B. brasieri fossils are challenging all that—but not for the reasons trumpeted in the media.

To read the rest, roll on over to "‘Billion-year’ fossil ‘balls’ (part 1) — Life created complex from the beginning". Be sure to come back for the amazing sequel. You'll thank me later.

Remember that I said that these scientists are making assumptions? Molecular clock data is drawn from radiometric dating. The whole shootin' match is circular reasoning. The same protein is in many organisms, but they assume the clock was even over a billion years. It is calibrated to radiometric dating, not known mutation rates. Remember, proponents of deep time are quite arbitrary in picking dates they like and disregarding results that are contrary to the narrative.

Admittedly, creationists have their own presuppositions and speculations. It is indeed unfortunate, however, that these folks won't cowboy up and face the facts. Those include recent creation and that the observed evidence fits biblical creation science global Flood models.

Part 1 examined evidence of new microscopic fossils of multi-cellular organisms discovered in NW Scotland called Bicellum brasieri. These organisms possessed cellular functions identical to those seen in modern life, revealing evidence for intelligent design, rather than evolution. This part 2 examines the associated claims that B. brasieri are a ‘billion years old’, and ‘evolved in a fresh water lake.’ Aspects of this claim include radiometric dating, geochemical, and structural geological implications. These claims are discussed below.

To read science in the rest of the article that is inconvenient to Darwinists, bounce on over to "‘Billion-year’ fossil ‘balls’ (part 2) — Earliest life buried catastrophically in Noah’s Flood".

Comments