Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query living fossil. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query living fossil. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, August 5, 2016

The Term "Living Fossil" Seems Offensive

Darwinists tend to get a mite riled when biblical creationists use the term living fossil. Probably because it reminds them of evolution's failure. (One reason I chose "Piltdown Superman" for this site is to remind molecules-to-machinist evolutionists of the Piltdown Man fraud that fooled many scientists for about 40 years.) So, isn't it the trend these days that if someone can't handle the truth, try to get them to stifle themselves about it?

Those things called "living fossils" have been an embarrassment for evolutionists since Darwin's day. One seems offended by the term and wants it dropped. Ain't happening.
The Wollemi pine is considered a living fossil
Wollamia Nobilis image credit: Fritz Geller-Grimm / Wikimedia Commons
Briefly stated, a living fossil is something that shows up in the fossil record, hasn't been seen, then is discovered alive and well. Embarrassing to evolutionists, and some invoke the spirit of stasis, a ridiculous attempt to say that things didn't change because they didn't have to, despite dramatic environmental changes over millions of Darwinspeak years. So, someone's offended, it appears, and wants the phrase dropped, and his "reasons" have some falsehoods. We ain't dropping the term, old son. People have to realize that evolution is false, and the evidence points to creation. I reckon that if some people have their way, facts against evolution and affirming special creation will be considered "hate speech" soon, since so many weak people are "offended" over every little thing.
Mark Carnall at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History recently wrote an article for the UK newspaper The Guardian. He argues that we should stop using the term "living fossil." What does his argument reveal about evolutionary thinking?

Charles Darwin first used the phrase in the Origin of Species to describe life forms that look essentially the same today as their fossil versions, even though their fossils are absent from intervening rock layers.

Carnall called the coelacanth fish the "living fossil poster child." When early evolutionists first saw its fossils in Devonian rocks, they thought the creature represented a long-extinct missing link—the fish that might have crawled onto land on its way to evolving into the first amphibian. That all changed when a researcher happened to discover a freshly caught coelacanth in a fish market in 1938. Marine biologists have since identified two populations of the deep-water dwelling fish. So what's the problem with the term "living fossil"?
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Should We Drop the Term 'Living Fossil'?


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 22, 2013

Salamanders Have "Living Fossil" Status

So often, evolutionary science is a game of words. Remember the new golden rule, that whoever makes the definitions makes the rules. In this case, it's the term "living fossils". This is generally applied when a plant or animal is found alive and well, but had been declared extinct for "millions of years". The term "living fossil" is a bit of a loaded term, implying that evolution is true despite a bit of a glitch.

They also want the best of both worlds. Evolution is a "fact", sometimes called a law as if it was a kind of inexorable force. So when these "living fossils" are discovered virtually unchanged, people will say something like, "It didn't evolve because it didn't have to". What fallacy is that, No True Evolution, or special pleading?

stock.xchng / Fire Salamander / gc85
Salamanders are a bit different in the "living fossil" realm, since they have not been declared extinct while in hiding and then relocated. Still, the propaganda positively progresses past the point of perspicuity.
You’ve heard of ‘living fossils’? These are usually announced (often with much media fanfare) when something known only from the fossil record, long presumed extinct for millions of years, is unexpectedly found living somewhere. Examples of such living fossils include the coelacanth fish, the Wollemi pine tree (see Missing? or misinterpreted?), and the ‘Gladiator’ insect.
But the latest animal to be pronounced a living fossil is one that has been familiar to generations of people for as long as anyone can remember; namely, the salamander.
So how can something long known to be living, suddenly be dubbed a ‘living fossil’?
Salamanders have always been salamanders.
You can finish reading the rest at "Salamanders are ‘living fossils’!"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 17, 2012

Paleontological Pine Puzzler

Wollamia Nobilis image credit: Fritz Geller-Grimm / Wikimedia Commons

The Wollemi pine is a mystery to paleontologists. For one thing, it was unknown until 1994 despite being discovered on 125 miles from downtown Sydney, Australia in Wollemi National Park. These secluded trees require specific growing conditions. Another baffling thing about them is that they are not in the fossil record. Pollen from their genus is in the fossil record, however, in strata allegedly 200 million years old. Then, nothing. The Wollemi pine has been called a "living fossil". Because it does not fit with the evolutionary scheme but does fit well with creationist models, it has probably been called other things that are best left unrepeated.
The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica (figure 3). This obvious relationship explains the designation of the Wollemi pine as a "tree from the Dinosaur Age," a "living fossil" that has been "missing for 150 million years." To evolutionary botanists the origin of the Wollemi pine remains an evolutionary enigma. How could this tree go missing for 150 million years when its relative sits fossilized less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) away from the living survivors?
You can read the rest of "Wollemia nobilis: A Living Fossil and Evolutionary Enigma", in context, here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Putting a Lie About Living Fossils to Rest

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while when creationists use the term "living fossils" to show flaws in evolutionary ideas, someone comes along with a comment like, "That's a term made up by YECs to attack evolution!" That's the opposite of the truth. But what if Young Earth Creationists did make up that term? Words and phrases are made up all the time. So if we did make it up, somehow it wouldn't be legitimate — but it's all right for atheist evolutionists like Clinton R. Dawkins to make up the word "meme"? Double standards, you can but we can't.

But we didn't.

The first known use of the term "living fossil" seems to have been with Papa Darwin himself. Like his successors, he used an observation and then guessed about an explanation. When people do it today, it's called "science".

PiltdownSuperman.com, The Question Evolution Project, BCSE, Charles Darwin, Living Fossils, Evolution, Creation, Creation Science

Since some people want to cling to their beliefs despite the evidence, I'm going to show you that the term "living fossil" is not just something creationists lassoed for our own use. The following sources are not creation-friendly:
In addition to the source from Darwin, you can clearly see over a dozen links to evolutionary sites that use the term "living fossils". It's not a creationist term, despite what Darwin's Stormtroopers pa-TROLL-ing the Web may try to tell you. This is a fallacy called "prejudicial conjecture"; someone heard someone else say that it's a creationist term and then s/he passed that lie around as well. It could easily have been avoided by doing a few minutes of online research.

But wait! You may very well be studying on this and wondering, "Hey, Cowboy Bob, what do creationists think about living fossils, and why does it matter to them?

I'm glad you asked. Here are some links on the matter:

So, the next time someone tells you that YECs made up the expression, or that evolutionists don't use it, you can say, "Not hardly!", and show them this link. I did the research for your convenience, and also because some anti-creationists can't be bothered to do it.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, April 19, 2019

Giant Bee as a Living Fossil

People who have followed the origins controversy have probably heard the term living fossil, originally used by Charles Darwin. This term essentially means that something living shows no appreciable change over millions of Darwin years. Wallace's Giant Bee is an ironic contribution.

Wallace's Giant Bee was rediscovered alive and well after several decades. It is considered a living fossil, and is a problem for evolutionary views.
Megachile pluto, Wallace's Giant Bee drawing by Dr. Heinrich Friese
This bee was made famous by Alfred Russell Wallace, a friendly rival of Charles Darwin, when Wallace was in Indonesia. It was thought extinct since 1981, but was found again recently. Nice when that happens. However, it also prompts evolutionists to come up with Just So Stories that rival Rudyard Kipling. You see, amber is quite a preservative, better than a typical fossil, so they have to explain away the lack of change. "Stasis" is a non-explanation that buzzes the wrong way for evolutionists' claims, and is just an excuse to get out of admitting that life was created recently.
Every now and then one of these ancient giant insects is discovered to be still living today. An example is the world’s largest bee, Megachile pluto, which was recently rediscovered on an Indonesian island. The bee, which grows up to an inch and a half long and has a wingspan of 2.5 inches, is roughly four times larger than a honeybee. Morphologically, it is clearly a bee, and yet it is very different from all of the bees we are familiar with, especially the honeybee. Called a living fossil, it has very large un-bee like mandibles that resemble those of a stag beetle. . .

Reported widely by the press, this find created an interest in the enormous variety of insect life on earth. Unfortunately, labels such as “primitive” are often applied by evolutionary scientists and reporters to describe life assumed to have existed eons ago, but this ancient bee was anything than primitive. It had as complex a body and brain as modern insects have.  How do we know this? The answer lies in the way they were preserved.
To read the entire article, click on "Living Fossil Giant Bee Challenges Evolution".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Living Fossils on the Dinner Menu

We hear about living fossils, those critters that show up in the "fossil record" under different names than their still-existing counterpart. Proponents of fish-to-physicist evolution get burrs under their saddles when living fossils are mentioned because they show flaws in their belief system. For that matter, some anti-creationists have said that we invented the term "living fossils", but they are a mite uninformed, possibly dishonest, because it was conjured up by Charles Darwin.

A fun fact that annoys evolutionists is that much of the seafood you eat is Mesozoic living fossils.
Image made at RedKid.net
The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine invertebrates, and we get fish, plants, and so on. Mammals, not so much. When you tie on the feed bag at your favorite eatery, quite a few items on the menu could very well be the living counterparts to creatures that have been fossilized and given different names. Since the "fossil record" is kind of catawampus (the fossil progression only existing in textbooks and evolutionary propaganda videos), the best explanation for what is actually observed in the strata is the Genesis Flood.
After looking over a long list of “living fossils”—living creatures with fossil look-alikes—I realized many of them are found on today’s seafood menus. What delectable dishes could a Mesozoic seafood restaurant offer a friendly T. rex family? Using real fossils to answer this whimsical question offers new reasons to think that Noah’s recent Flood, rather than eons of evolution, deposited the dinosaur-rich rock layers found all over the earth’s continents.

This thought came to mind when a reader asked ICR if we knew of an exhaustive list of living fossils on the Internet. The best we could find was an incomplete list on Wikipedia. Then we remembered medical doctor Carl Werner’s book Living Fossils, complete with dozens of full-color photos of living and fossil plants and animals set side by side. With Dr. Werner’s permission, a simple list of the living fossils in his book is now available online. Hopefully, more folks can see that the familiarity of the life forms that died alongside dinosaurs opposes the evolutionary dogma of unlimited creature change. Now back to that Mesozoic menu.
To get back to the menu discussion, click on "Mesozoic Seafood Menu Caters to Noah's Flood".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Living Fossils, Luck, and Other Reasoning Problems

The article featured below this introduction was almost skipped, since "living fossils" and evolutionary excuses have been done here a few times already. However, it turns out that it's worth examining, since it's not a list of inconveniences to evolutionists. No, it's much more.

"Living fossil" is a term used to identify stubborn critters that refused to evolve over millions of imaginary Darwin years. The thinking that gave rise to this concept has created other logic problems that evolutionists employ.
Image credit: Pixabay/Kylienne
Although some anti-creationists have claimed that we came up with the term living fossil, it was Darwin's invention. The purpose is to identify annoying critters that didn't follow evolutionary rules, refusing to evolve after millions of imaginary Darwin years. They're doing fine (thanks for asking), and their fossilized counterparts are essentially unchanged. Evolutionists come up with rescuing devices such as stasis (it didn't have to evolve, so it didn't). But this fundamentally flawed thinking pattern has also led to other concepts that do not exist in nature, the lab, or anywhere except the imaginations of evolutionists. That ain't science, pilgrim, that's excuse-making. Throwing alleged millions of years at something is not going to prove evolution or disprove the Creator.
. . . living fossils cause their own troubles for evolutionists. In his review of a new book about such creatures, science writer Colin Barras observed “that peculiarly oxymoronic moniker, too, has survived—for around 150 years.” The term “living fossil,” first used by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species, does indeed sound like an oxymoron. However, it suits the way evolutionists apply it to their theory.

Their central problem is time—in this case, too much of it. If evolution is all about creatures changing over time, how do evolutionists account for the many groups of creatures that, in the broad sense, did not change? The time involved in these cases is not trivial. In their way of thinking, you shouldn’t be able to compare a 400 million-year-old fossil fish to its living counterpart and find no major differences.

Time can be an evolutionist’s ally. Darwin appealed to incomprehensibly vast eons to smother any mental reservations about the impossibility of one kind of organism evolving into fundamentally different kinds. His thinking goes like this: If organisms have an enormous number of chances to change over eons, by sheer luck the seemingly impossible just may happen. But vast eras of time may also be an enemy to his theory. Why have horseshoe crabs changed hardly at all in 450 million years when fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals all supposedly emerged in succession in 550 million years from some “primitive” organism? Is this non-evolution (called stasis) of horseshoe crabs really the norm for all of life, or are creatures like them simply evolutionary anomalies?
To read this insightful article in its entirety, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: The Fatal Flaws of Living Fossils".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, December 28, 2015

Two More Living Fossils Frustrate Evolutionists

There's a false claim by anti-creationists that the term living fossil was invented by creationists. Even if that were true, such a claim would be meaningless. But the fact is, it goes back to Charles Darwin his own self, and other non-creationists use it as well. You savvy? A "living fossil" is something that exists today and is essentially unchanged from those found in fossils alleged to be millions or billions of years old.

Living fossils are a problem for evolutionists. Here are two more to add to the list.
Chambered nautilus / Image credit: USFWS
Sure, evolutionists have excuses for that. One is that it didn't need to evolve. Right. Even though they claim that other creatures faced genetic mutations and environmental pressures that brought about evolution, but many things were unaffected? On one had, evolution is an irresistible force, but on the other hand, it doesn't happen. That's a policeman's exit (cop out). It seems that some people will come up with almost any excuse to deny the obvious: life was created recently, and evidence for dust-to-Darwinist evolution is nonexistent.

The chambered nautilus has been fished almost to extinction so people can sell their shells by the seashore and on eBay, among other things. But this critter shows no appreciable difference from its ancestors, except a loss of variability. Similarly, the extremely far-fetched story of turtle evolution has no fossil record support. In both cases, these living fossils (and others) add consternation for the hands at the Darwin Ranch.
According to Genesis 1:21, “God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind.” The creation of original, distinct creature kinds confronts the evolutionary teaching that animals can endlessly morph from one form to another. Recent news reports reveal two clear illustrations of sea creatures living and reproducing according to their kinds right from the start.

The stunningly beautiful chambered nautilus features its famous coiled and symmetrical shell. Deep-sea shell hunters overharvest the tentacled predators by setting baited traps, sometimes as deep as 2,000 feet below the surface of southwest Pacific Ocean waters. Fishermen apparently suffer no regulations as they supply a growing market for the alluring nautilus shells.
To keep reading and also get to the part about the turtles, click on "'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 18, 2013

Living Fossils — Keep the Change

When an organism is found fossilized and the living specimen is virtually unchanged, it is called a "living fossil". Such things are baffling to evolutionists (although Darwin's Uninformed Cheerleaders brush off the facts by saying, "Well, evolution does not require things to change"). To have so many critters in "stasis" in their ecosystems for alleged millions of years simply does not make sense and interferes with evolutionary theories.
Some folk just don’t see the significance of the myriad examples of ‘living fossils’. Following our interview with Dr Carl Werner on the topic, one evolutionist protested:
“There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
Evolution is about change, and putting ‘evolutionary’ in front of ‘stasis’, does not explain the stasis in terms of evolution.
However, as Dr Werner said in the article:
“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
Furthermore, some evolutionists have admitted that living fossils (‘stasis’) are a big problem for evolution. They have no explanation. This is not about suggesting that something has to go extinct if something evolves from it; that is not the point. The point is the lack of change, which is a huge problem for evolution, which is about vast changes. As high-profile evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge admitted, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”
You can read the rest of "Evolutionists Can't Dodge 'Living Fossils'", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Obscuring Coelacanth Evolution

Many creationists point out that a species of armored fish called the coelacanth was presumed extinct for over 65 million Darwin years, then it was found in 1936 doing just fine. It was just the same as it was in the fossil record, and that's the beginning of evolutionist woes. A new bundle of evoporn is attempting to make excuses.

The armored fish called the coelacanth was an icon for evolution, but it was discarded by reality. Now evolutionists are trying to save face with more fact-ignoring speculations.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scientists cannot use the unscientific rescuing device of "stasis" for this or other living fossils because during those alleged millions of years, Darwinian mythology has a passel of things evolving. In addition, the claim that certain fins were evidence of it trying to evolve legs, but that was also disproved by Big C itself.

A paper on the coelacanth tried to save face for Darwin, and it did what his disciples so often invoke. They ignored some very important facts, then used weasel words loaded with the equivalent of "I guess maybe", then passed it off as science. Such evoporn may help them feel better, but it does nothing useful for either science or evolution. It is also yet another desperate attempt to obscure the simple truth of recent creation.
This fish hasn’t evolved for 66 million Darwin Years and is a classic “living fossil.” We get a Darwin fish story anyway.
By all accounts, the coelacanth (Latimeria) is a strange fish among an ocean of strange fish. . . .  The coelacanth (pronouned see-la-canth) is unique for its bony fins, and its cranial development and brain. Its neurocranium is divided into two lobes connected by an intracranial joint. If that detail is only worth a yawn, consider this: the fish is a classic living fossil.
You can sea the rest of the article by clicking on "The Coelacanth: A Case of Scientific Obscurantism".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Paleontologists Show a Squid is Still a Squid

In their ongoing efforts to provide evidence for common-ancestor evolution, paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have something to tell all y'all: it's a squid. Yep, a well-preserved fossil that was dated at several million Darwin years is the same as modern squid. That is, a living fossil.

Squid fossil shows little difference from modern squid
Jewel squid image credit: Mike Vecchione, NMFS/NOAA
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Living fossils are annoying to evolutionists because there is no sign of something becoming something else over alleged long ages. Still, these owlhoots commence to doing misleading storytelling. They include definitive scientific term probably, and use a passel of assumptions. Circular reasoning is helpful, too. Problem is, Darwinoids grab this stuff as actual science and then spread it around. The logical conclusion is that such evolution did not, does not happen, and the evidence shows special creation instead.
A recent science news article sheds light on the amazing squid, but definitely not on its supposed evolution or origin. Creation scientists maintain squid have always been squid, and science bears this out with a new and highly detailed squid fossil. The article states the fossil is "exceptionally preserved." Clearly the reason for the exceptional formation and preservation of the squid's fragile body in this fossil is due to an obvious rapid and catastrophic burial. A flood of biblical proportions comes to mind.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The Fascinating Squid".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Stromatolites — Living Fossil Testimony of the Genesis Flood

Darwinists consider stromatolites evidence of the oldest life on Earth, and fossils have been found in some rocks that are dated billions of years old according to deep time conjectures. They were considered extinct until some were found alive and well, and are considered by some to be living fossils. Like many scientific discoveries, they were overlooked for a mighty long time because of evolutionary preconceptions: scientists didn't look because they assumed that stromatolites were extinct. (Don't let evolutionary thinking ruin your mind, kids.) Interestingly, stromatolites seem to need special water conditions to survive, but are still found in diverse areas.

Stromatolites give tesimony of the Genesis Flood
Shark Bay stromatolites image credit: NASA / Mark Boyle
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Reminiscent of corals, stromatolites are the assemblages of single-celled, DNA-less microbes known as cyanobacteria. Like annoying house guests, they get together and stay put. Eventually, mats are built. During the Genesis Flood, some of these became fossilized. Secular scientists have evidence-free guesses as to why stromatolites faded away until few are remaining, but creationary scientists have a much more satisfying explanation.
Scientists believed stromatolites were extinct—until they found them living in Shark Bay, Australia, in 1956. Living stromatolites just keep popping up in newer and more diverse environments. The latest research has identified them even living on land.

Living stromatolites have been found in highly saline marine environments in the Bahamas and in atolls in the Central Pacific. Stromatolites have even been found in freshwater lakes and streams in Spain, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, and Japan. Although these are freshwater bodies, they all have an unusual water chemistry, allowing the stromatolites to thrive in both saltwater and freshwater environments.
To read the rest, click on "Stromatolites by Land and by Sea".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

New Darwin-Defying Fossils

According to common-ancestor evolutionists, their process is slow, with numerous gradual changes between forms. Papa Darwin said so, and they still believe it today. Problem is, there's no real supporting evidence in the fossil record. Sure, they'll trot out that reliable and unbiased source of scientific information called Wikipedia and say, "See? Here's a list of transitional fossils!"

Evolution should be supported by billions of transitional forms in the fossil record, but there are only a few disputed specimens. New fossils add to the evolutionists' confusion by refusing to be gradual, and in the "wrong" places.

That'll be the day. Varieties and variations are not evidence of evolution, and there the few that are seriously considered to be transitional forms are disputed. There should be billions of transitional fossils, and Darwinists should be able to say, "Case closed". They can't do this, because their conjectures of evolution never happened, that's why the evidence is continually unfriendly to them. Instead, the evidence supports recent special creation.

Two recent fossil finds are difficult for evolutionists to explain. One is an odd ichthyosaur, the other involves shrimp eyes.
In Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, he claimed that “natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure though slow steps.” Mainstream evolutionary thinkers accept Darwin’s premise, but have the 150 years of fossil discoveries since publication of the 4th edition of Origin revealed gradual evolution? Two recently found fossils offer a test.

If evolution occurred, textbooks and museums should abound with examples showing fossil A in lower sedimentary layers, fossil B in upper layers (or with still-living counterparts), and many slight, successive variations of fossils between them. Fossils should clearly show evolution from A to B. Why do textbook writers overuse old and long-disproven fossil illustrations of evolution instead of regularly supplying freshly discovered A-to-B transitional fossils? Many fossils don’t fit this Darwinian prediction.
To read the rest, click on "Two Recent Fossils Confront Gradual Evolution". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Mosquito Fossil Shakes Evolutionary Dating Foundations

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11.4, HCSB

From the beginning, mankind has wanted to be important in his own eyes. Eve fell for the lie of Satan, "You shall be like God" (Genesis 3). Somewhere around 2200 BC, people were still trying to make a name for themselves and challenge God's authority. The ancient pagan religion of evolutionism has been a justification for the rejection of God; Darwin popularized it as "scientific" and put this paganism in a lab coat.

Using evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, charts are made for their timelines and data is force-fit into a naturalistic paradigm. There are frequent discoveries that rattle the cages of the Evo Sith, but they manage to carry on with their worldview despite the evidence. In this case, a compression fossil of a mosquito was found in the Kishenehn Formation. It still had blood in its abdomen, which cannot happen for something of the putative age of the formation. Additionally, oil exists in the formation, which also should not happen. Empirical data discredits evolutionary assumptions. These things happen when people want to reject the Creator and inflate their own self-importance.
Researchers recently examined a spectacular mosquito fossil containing still-bloody remnants within its body. They dated the fossil based on the assumed age of the Kishenehn Formation where it was found, assigning it an age of 46 million years. Publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the team used energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to confirm in triplicate the presence of iron and heme (blood pigments) inside the fossil mosquito’s abdomen, where living female mosquitos store their blood meals. The study authors wrote, “The combination of these two determinations indicates that the porphyrins [dark red pigments] are derived from the oxygen-carrying heme moiety of hemoglobin”—real blood. 
This mosquito’s abdomen, and likely its entire body, was never mineralized—i.e., replaced by minerals. Instead, it was preserved as a tiny carcass in a rock, called acompression fossil. Secular researchers have detected hemoglobin remnants like these in several other species, including tyrannosaur, hadrosaur, and mosasaur fossils. 
These fossils pose a huge problem for evolutionary dating methods. Although a new study has shown that iron actually helps preserve dead nearby cells, no experiment has yet demonstrated a tissue decay rate that supports preservation over millions of years. Most longevity studies of biomolecules like hemoglobin, DNA, and collagen show decay rates in ranges that spell total disintegration of sterile samples from within a few months to several hundred thousand years, assuming reasonable Earth surface temperatures.
To see what the buzz is about, fly over to "Bloody Mosquito Pierces Standard Fossil Dating Procedure".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 9, 2013

Fossil Spider Tall Tale

Evolutionists find fossils that they claim are multi-millions of years old. But they look just like their modern counterparts. That is unacceptable to evolutionists. The oft-told tale is that something dies and takes a very long time to fossilize. But this is in spite of common knowledge, but in spite of common sense. Scavengers, decay, the elements and more ruin the chances of fossilization by uniformitarian methods. No, something has to be buried quickly.

Golden Orb-Weaver Spider Nephila maculata/Wikimedia Commons/Engelen
A soft-bodied creature is even more susceptible to removal before the established fossil-making techniques are engaged. What is worse is when a fossil is alleged to be so many millions of years old, and its living counterparts show no noticeable changes.
Fossils are just one of many different pieces of evidence used to cause confusion between evolutionary theory and biblical history. Many of the fossil finds reported by the mainstream media are touted to be millions of years old but with no explanation of how the scientists reached that conclusion. The following fossil find is no exception.
LiveScience reports that scientists in Inner Mongolia, China, discovered an amazingly well-preserved fossil female golden orb-weaver spider, named Nephila jurassica, which is supposedly 165 million years old. Golden orb-weaver spiders are big enough to catch birds and bats in their web. The silk they use in their web shines like gold when sunlight catches it. This particular fossil was buried in volcanic ash and much to the scientists surprise, looks “about as large as its modern relatives, with a body one inch (2.5 centimeters) wide and legs that reach up to 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) long.”
Any operational science experiment will show that a dead creature will not last long exposed to the elements.
You can finish reading "Another Web of Evolutionary Deceit", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, February 23, 2019

The Genesis Flood and Expanding Fossil Ranges

Fanciers of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution often erroneously claim that the fossils prove evolution. Quite often, those owlhoots are unaware that the sanitized version of evolution that they are peddling is erroneous, and they end up being schooled by knowledgeable creationists. Fossil ranges are expanding, which causes considerable consternation up at the Darwin Ranch.

More fossils are out of place, prompting secular geologists to expand fossil ranges and make excuses of "stasis" of living fossils. What is found fits with creation science expectations.
Bandicoot image credit: Pixabay/Siggy Nowak
Darwinoids ineffectively evosplain how fossils are out of order. In addition, they have to cowboy up to the embarrassment of living fossils (something was thought to have been extinct for a few million Darwin years but is found alive, well, and mostly unchanged). They use the transparent excuse of "stasis", which flies in the face of evolutionary dogma.

As biblical creationists will tell you, there is some semblance of order in the geological column. but it does not support evolutionary concepts or an old earth. Indeed, we are not surprised by fossils that are recalcitrant to the order required by evolutionists, nor are we bothered by living fossils. Evolutionists have to rewrite their dogma when the fossil ranges expand, but it's their misfortune and none of our own. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
For the last few decades, several creationists have been reporting on the vertical expansion of fossil ranges, interpreted as either ‘older’ or ‘younger’ in the geological column timescale. These finds are probably the tip of the iceberg, since we cannot go through all the relevant journals that would report range expansions. In fact, many of these issues likely go unreported because many ‘anomalous’ or ‘uninteresting’ fossils end up in the back shelves of museum collections, as Dr Carl Werner has discovered. As such, it is hard to know just how large the scale of this phenomenon is, though it is almost certainly more severe than reported in any literature, secular or creationist.
To read more of the hard truth and read about some examples, click on "Fossil time ranges continue to expand up and down". You may also like a previous post, "Increasing Disarray in Evolutionary Timelines".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 21, 2013

Like a Sturgeon...

When watching some of those "Let's see if we can find the real creature" shows on TV, a couple of sea monster sightings were dismissed as sturgeons. While I was not convinced that a real mystery had been found, I thought it was simplistic to blame a fish. (Sort of like when UFOs had been dismissed as the planet Venus, which was not visible at the time of the alleged sighting.) Later, I learned that sturgeons (which are a bit high in cholesterol) can grow to an impressive size. Ugly, too.
But never mind about that now. 

Evolutionists want to claim that they are "living fossils". You know, those things that have not changed much in the alleged "millions of years" from what we see now, and the impressions they made in the fossil record. And yet, they contradict themselves. Darwin's Cheerleaders are carping that the sturgeon does not cooperate with the expected rate of change. Nor do they change enough. But they "evolve" too fast. (Note the bait-and-switch on the word "evolution", which is grossly misapplied.)

There is speciation (expected in the creationist models), but not a shred of evidence of molecules-to-man evolution; you must remember this, a fish is still a fish. A sturgeon is still a sturgeon. They did not care about the evolutionary presuppositions that they are wrecking.
Sturgeon, thought to exist in only around 29 species worldwide, have long been considered living fossils. But now a study published in Nature Communications has dubbed them winners in the race for rapid evolution in defiance of accepted evolutionary principles.
Molecules-to-man evolution, which has never been observed, is generally assumed to be a process requiring a series of changes over millions of years. Darwin coined the term “living fossil” to describe living organisms that have remained unchanged for millions of years. But rapidly appearing variations in an organism, such as those that may ultimately produce new species, are often cited as examples of rapid, observable evolution.
Within this framework, the authors of “Rates of speciation and morphological evolution are correlated across the largest vertebrate radiation” point out:
Perhaps learning the truth is giving you a haddock. Nevertheless, you should reel in the rest of "Sizeable Sturgeons Set Evolutionary Speed Records?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Ancient Algae Amazes Evolutionists

Living things seem mighty recalcitrant when it comes to supporting evolutionary conjectures, including those things termed living fossils. Those are things that were thought to be extinct, then found alive and essentially unchanged after millions of alleged years. A green alga, a seaweed, is not quite a living fossil because it was thought to be extinct in North America but still living in other parts of the world. Well, it's been found in North America after all, and it's unchanged.

Dinosaur-era algae supposedly extinct in North America for long ages has been discovered, and it is unchanged

In cases like this, wait for Darwin's Drones to bring out the usual boilerplate excuses: it didn't have to evolve, stasis, and things like that. This child doesn't fall for those tricks, because a lot of environmental things happen in a year, and evolutionary mythology breaks down if they think we're going to accept such "explanations". Aside from the anticipated excuses, there are several important facts that evolutionists overlook, including how critters and plants did not evolve, they were created to survive — and adapt when necessary.
Botanists recently discovered Lychnothamnus barbatus, a large form of green algae known from European and Asian freshwater lakes, in North America. Before this discovery, the only hints of this particular water plant in the Americas came from their fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Argentina.1 If this type of algae’s fossils were deposited tens of millions of years ago, then how has it avoided evolutionary tinkering ever since? How could it remain unchanged for over “65 million years?”
To chew on the rest (won't take long, it's not a huge article), click on "Dinosaur Algae Alive and Well Today". For a related article, read "Seaweed Clogs Evolutionary Propellers".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, July 24, 2015

Video Review — "Evolution's Achilles' Heels"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
I'm a bit late to this party. The book Evolution's Achilles' Heels was released in July 2014, and the DVD came out in October 2014 (see the trailer at the bottom). Once my finances stabilized, I went to the stable, saddled up and purchased the book-DVD combo pack. That means Creation Ministries International did not give me anything, financial or otherwise, for writing this here review; I bought the items by my lonesome. In fact, they don't even know about the review yet. Haven't read the book yet, but I'm looking forward to it and will give that a review later on.
First off, some basic information. You want credentialed scientists? You got 'em! The 15 Ph.D. scientists in the Evolution's Achilles' Heels video discuss seven areas where evolutionary theory fails, but they don't go into a lot of heavy scientific lingo. The video is 96 minutes long, and the sections are separated so you can find them easily if you don't want to watch the whole shootin' match at one time, or want to use it in a group setting. (I like the music, too. Sometimes background music gets overbearing, and this complimented the video quite well.) There is good use of animation as well as other footage, so it's not just a series of interviews. Each scientist is named in a caption at his first appearance, and this is repeated in each section, which is helpful if you're viewing it in installments. Also, each section has summary bullet points at the end of each section.

What follows are comments on the sections in the video, plus a few of my own.

Natural Selection. Interestingly, natural selection is something that creationists and Darwinists agree on. (In fact, creationist Edward Blyth proposed the concept before Darwin claimed it.) New species arise, and that is a part of the creationist model. Unfortunately, the term "species" is blurry, and can mean different things to different people. Different iguanas on the Galapagos Islands can interbreed, are they separate species? Natural selection does not cause evolution by giving new genetic information. Instead, it is a fine-tuning of systems; survival of the fittest does not explain the arrival of the fittest.

Genetics. I've had disciples of Darwin smugly assert that genetics proves evolution. Not hardly! The more we learn about genetics, the more we see that it is hostile to evolution. For that matter, evolutionary bias led to the concept of "Junk" DNA, which has been soundly refuted. Scientists have found information, communication (in multiple dimensions), and "languages". The human genome is fading through genetic entropy, and humanity is rusting out like an old car; if we were as old as evolutionists claim, humanity should be extinct.

Origin of Life. Some owlhoots try to distance themselves from the origin of life, saying that it has nothing to do with evolution. That is based on ignorance, or just plain dishonesty. Even so, they want to defend the failed Miller-Urey experiment, which produced mixed amino acids. Did life come from "primordial soup"? (It's condensed, just add water — oh, wait. Water is not good for it. Never mind.)

Chance is not feasible, and even if through time and chance you obtained some amino acids, you have the chirality problem to make things worse. Keep going, there's the ATP synthase motor that life depends on. Amazingly complex and efficient, but it can't exist without life, and life can't exist without it. Now what, Darwin? 

Since the origin of life on Earth is clearly impossible, some people invoke panspermia, where life came here from way up yonder. Right, can't happen here, so it's a problem for the space aliens. That's science?

Fossil Record. The long-age standard explanation is that fossils take a long time to form. Not so. For fossils to form at all, the proper conditions are required — and they can form rapidly. Charles Darwin predicted that the missing transitional forms (that is, clear fossil evidence of something evolving into something else) would be found. This has not happened. Looks like he was living on faith, huh? His faith was unfounded, because there should be a passel of transitional fossils, but there are only a few disputed forms. And there are millions of fossils, so there should have been plenty of fossil evidence for evolution.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels has a good explanation and animation about the Cambrian explosion, where complex life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record. This frustrates evolutionists, but fits in well with what biblical creationists expect to find from Genesis Flood models.

Another problem is what they sometimes call "stasis". That is, a "living fossil" is found, where something was considered either very old or even extinct, but the living counterpart for fossils that's alleged to be "millions of years old" is virtually unchanged. Invoking "stasis", and saying that the organism didn't change because it didn't have to is, well, downright silly.

The problem for long-agers with soft tissues in dinosaur bones is mentioned, as is the fact that DNA of Neanderthals has been found (I did tell you that genetics is hostile to evolution). Not only should such "old" things like the tissues and DNA not even exist after long ages, but studies have shown that Neanderthals were another group of humans that interbred with the ancestors of other humans; their genome was like ours.

Geologic Column. If you're showing this video to a group, I reckon that it would be a good move to show this section immediate after the previous one if you have time. 

Back in the day, geology was established by creationists, who viewed science from a biblical perspective. Then people thought that unsupportable assertions in geology (written by anti-biblical naturalists) was a better idea, so uniformitarianism took over. Uniformitarianism is "the present is the key to the past", where slow and gradual processes observed today must have happened over long periods of time. This view rejects catastrophism, the Genesis Flood at the time of Noah that shaped the Earth rapidly. Basically, you have a little water over a lot of time, or a lot of water over a little time. That's over-simplified, but you get the idea.

In the mid to late 20th century, geologists began sneaking catastrophe through the back door of the saloon, buying it a sarsaparilla, and then shooing it back out again. In other words, uniformitarian geologists have been realizing that their views are fundamentally flawed, and they grudgingly admit that catastrophes must be valid explanations at times. Naturally (heh!), they don't admit to the Noachian Flood, but it's a start. One area where quick formation of geologic features can be seen is Mt. St. Helens; layers were laid down and a canyon was carved very rapidly. Apply this small example of catastrophic geologic processes to the Genesis Flood, and you can get a glimmer of the tremendous energy involved at that time. I'd like to see CMI put their animators to work on a video about the Lake Missoula Flood, but that's just me.

Plate tectonics is discussed, and how predictions from biblical Flood geologists are supported. We have continental plate subduction, rapid magnetic field reversals, and more. Algae is found in both "old" and "recent" layers of the geologic column, and the problems of rock folding is addressed.

Radiometric Dating. The basic principles of radiometric dating are covered, and the assumptions required for the process. There are serious challenges to the method, such as helium in zircon, carbon-14 in coal from different strata and different regions, and carbon-14 in diamonds. None of these should exist according to deep time worldviews. (Although not covered in this segment, rocks of known age from Mt. St. Helens were tested by this process and yielded wildly inaccurate and varying ages. This has happened other times as well.)

Cosmology. The dominant view of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang, is covered here. The Big Bang has many difficulties such as the horizon problem, "dark matter" and "dark energy" posited as ad hoc explanations for lack of scientific evidence for the Big Bang, and the "inflation period". Indeed, the origin of the universe is a matter of faith and has nothing to do with practical science, since it cannot be tested or repeated.

The "red shift" of objects supposedly shows the distance of celestial objects, but there are "near" red shift objects in close proximity to "far" red shift objects. If CMI wanted to make the segment quite a bit longer, they could have gone into much more detail about celestial objects, including those in our own solar system, acting "young". But they made their point quite handily.

Ethical Implications. I figured this eighth segment to be the "Why it matters" part of the video. Evolution is not just a field of study for various scientists and parlor discussions. Instead, it has serious implications for life itself, because evolutionary principles comprise a worldview (a topic discussed in this Weblog many times). Evolutionists operate from their paradigms, but seldom examine their philosophies. The sanctity of life does not fit evolutionary views — abortion is easy, as is the elimination of the unfit. And who defines how someone is "unfit"? The mass murders by totalitarians in the 20th century were done by people following an evolutionary worldview.

Evolution does not explain death and suffering beyond what is an expected daily occurrence, and offers no hope or comfort for people. However, the Bible contains explanations for the conditions of human experience that evolution cannot cover. Despite the evidence refuting evolution, its adherents cling to it so they can reject the Creator, the Fall of Man, and Redemption through Jesus Christ.

As you can figure, I highly recommend Evolution's Achilles' Heels. You can purchase it online at their store as a DVD, Blu Ray, or direct download. There is a free PDF study guide that you can download as well. This guide will be useful for individuals and groups who want more detailed material than this video can cover. Also, the book is available as a paperback and in e-book formats.

As I study on it, I realize that I do have a big regret: that I did not have it when I was giving a biblical creation science class in church. Now I'm giving serious thought to kicking up my heels and getting a 5-pack of the videos to give away for Christmas presents. (It's kind of funny, I realized while I was writing this that I'm wearing my "Question Evolution" T-shirt.)


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!