Page 93 of 94 FirstFirst ... 438391929394 LastLast
Results 1,841 to 1,860 of 1867
Like Tree527Likes

Miscellaneous

Random topics from random people!

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #1841
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Fossil Gaps 14

    g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.

    [See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

    It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]

    h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences27.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #1842
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Fossil Gaps 15

    i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

    Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.

    A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,” Science,Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

    Bird and theropod “hands” differ. Theropods have “fingers” I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger” and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.” [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” Science,Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.”[Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” Science,Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences27.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  3. #1843
    Senior Member p_rehbein's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 4th, 2013
    Age
    67
    Posts
    21,682
    Blog Entries
    40
    Rep Power
    237

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Common sense disproves evolution............I have found that there is very little, if any, common sense found in Science. Mayhaps that's why the get sodarnmany things wrong?

    Hebrews 13:5 .) Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
    6 .) So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

  4. #1844
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Fossil Gaps 16

    Theropod “arms” (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

    “... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].” Hinchliffe, p. 597.

    See “What Was Archaeopteryx?” []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes.

    Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

    j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural. ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ...” William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.

    “The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.”A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

    “Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

    k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.”Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences27.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #1845
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Fossil Gaps 17

    In fact, chains are missing, not links.The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).

    (l) “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” Nilsson, p. 1212.

    “...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.”Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Adventures in Earth History,editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.

    “A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.”Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.

    On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  6. #1846
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    The Cambrian Explosion 1


    The “evolutionary tree” has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).

    a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.

    “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Ibid., p. 344.

    “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”Ibid., p. 350.

    “The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”Ibid., p. 351.

    “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

    And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229.

    Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient,” Discover,April 1993, pp. 38–48.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences28.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  7. #1847
    Senior Member Addison's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2014
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,028
    Rep Power
    49

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Magenta, Prov910 and claysmithr like this.


  8. #1848
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    The Cambrian Explosion 2

    A. “One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.”Daniel I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science,Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.

    “Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?”Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American,Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

    “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress,Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.

    b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:
    L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,” Nature,Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.

    Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,” Science,Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.

    Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences28.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #1849
    Senior Member Prov910's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 10th, 2017
    Age
    56
    Posts
    878
    Rep Power
    49

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Two questions:

    If God wanted to could He have created the world by sparking some simple lifeforms into existence and then nurturing them to evolve into the vastly disparate lifeforms we now have on earth? Would this have been possible for God?

    If God wanted to could He have created the world in six 24 hours days? If he did this he would have instantly created the things that we think take eons to form. For example, He would have created diamonds in the earth and vast oil fields—things that we think take hundreds of millions of years to form. And He would have placed light beams from the stars (assuming the stars exist) out in space in all directions from earth at least several thousand light years out. Would this have been possible for God?

    =================================================

    As for me, I think it would have been possible for God to create the earth in either manner—that is, either through guiding evolution over the course of billions of years or else by creating everything at once in a short six day period. So for me it's a mere curiosity as to which way He chose to create the earth.
    ================================================== ===========
    10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. Prov. 9:10

  10. #1850
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    The Cambrian Explosion 3

    Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record.

    c. “... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.” Corner, p. 100.

    A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,” Nature, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796–797.

    A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, “Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab,” Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, March–April 1951, pp. 129–133.

    J. Coates et al., “Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266–267.

    Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, “Microflora of the Grand Canyon,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38–50.] Burdick was denied a doctor’s degree at the University of Arizona because of these discoveries. [See Jerry Bergman, “Clifford Burdick: Unjustly Expelled Twice,” Parts I and II, Creation Matters, September/October and July/August 2010.

    d. S. Leclercq, “Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian,” Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109–114.

    e. John E. Repetski, “A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America,” Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529–531.

    “Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.” Richard Monastersky, “Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up,” Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.

    “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), “Explosion of Life,” www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.

    “At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.” Erik Stokstad, “Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life,” Science, Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.

    “The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.” D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,” Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.

    D. G. Shu et al., “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,” Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42–46.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences28.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  11. #1851
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    The Cambrian Explosion 4


    Many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i). Insects and other arthropods found in amber, supposedly 100–230 million-years-old, look like those living today (j). The fossil record does not support evolution (k).

    f. “Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.” Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.

    “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

    Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.” Chien, p. 2.

    “It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now.” Ibid., p. 3.

    g. “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes,” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

    “The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...” J. R. Norman, A History of Fishes, [/i] 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

    “All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?” Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes—A Causal Relationship?” American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.

    h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783–792.

    i. “There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred.” Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14–15.

    “There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods.” Frank M. Carpenter, “Fossil Insects,” Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

    j. “For the most part, an ant [trapped in amber] living 100 million years ago looks like an ant today.” Paul Tafforeau, as quoted by Amy Barth, Discover, July/August 2009, p. 38.

    “At 230 million years old, the mite fossils are about 100 million years older than previous finds and indicate that mites’ basic body blueprint was built to last.” Meghan Rosen, “Amber-Tombed Mites Look Familiar: Oldest Arthropods Sealed in Resin Similar to Modern Forms,” Science News, Vol. 182, 6 October 2012, p. 14.

    k. “If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.

    [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24.
    Last edited by Pahu; October 18th, 2017 at 10:33 AM.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  12. #1852
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 1

    Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order (a).
    a. Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. [See “Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts I–VIII,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.]

    “In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.” David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

    “Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.”Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences29.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  13. #1853
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 2


    In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (c). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (d) and Arizona (e).

    b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch? Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.

    c. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96, 100.

    d. Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News,No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, “Man—A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?” Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28–29.]

    e. Paul O. Rosnau et al., “Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?” Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly,Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41–48 and December 1989, pp. 77–98.

    Jeremy Auldaney et al., “More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,” Creation Research Society Quarterly,Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133–146 and back cover.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences29.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  14. #1854
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 3

    Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

    f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

    Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly,Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

    Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

    g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

    Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,1876, pp. 80–81.

    John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

    h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology,Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences29.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  15. #1855
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4

    Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.




    Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water, and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees, such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. Significantly, no transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5 – 300 million years. (According to evolution, there should be millions.) Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

    Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

    In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living,bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html#wp3303900“Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?”] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

    i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants.” Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber,” Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

    “[The Illinois amber] has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

    j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

    A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

    A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature,Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.
    J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

    k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences29.html]
    Last edited by Pahu; November 14th, 2017 at 10:50 AM.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  16. #1856
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5

    Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l).

    Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

    l. Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey,Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

    Carl Zimmer, “A Secret History of Life on Land,” Discover,February 1998, pp. 76–83.m.

    Dong Ren, “Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,” Science,Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85–88.

    [http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences29.html]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  17. #1857
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Ape-Men? 1
    For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

    Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

    Since 1953, it has been universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

    a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution[based on skulls and teeth]are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9,25 April 2000, p. 5003.

    In 1995, nine anthropologists announced their discovery of early representatives of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster in China. [See Huang Wanpo et al., “Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from Asia,” Nature, Vol. 378, 16 November 1995, pp. 275–278.] Fourteen years later the same journal published a retraction. The discovery was of a “mystery ape.” [See Russell L. Ciochon, “The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia,” Nature, Vol. 459, 18 June 2009, pp. 910–911.]

    How many more mystery apes are there, and do they explain other so-called “ape-men”?

    “We have all see [sic]the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh[tidy, but sheer nonsense]. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of Homo sapiens, but pathological, or an ape.”Henry Gee, “Craniums with Clout,” Nature, Vol. 478, 6 October 2011, p. 34.

    b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

    c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.”Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London),Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

    Bowden, pp. 56–246.

    Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2,editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.

    d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

    “How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.”Lewin, Bones of Contention,p. 61.”

    [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes25.html#wp1066250]
    Last edited by Pahu; November 29th, 2017 at 09:24 AM.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  18. #1858
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Ape-Men? 2

    Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

    Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f).Ramapithecus was just an ape (g).

    Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

    The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth (h).Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

    d . Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:
    How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.

    At least eleven people have been accused of being the perpetrator of the famous Piltdown hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

    The hoaxer may have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]

    e. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

    f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,”Natural History, Vol. 88,August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.

    g. Hammond, p. 43.

    “The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.”Lewin,Bones of Contention, p. 86.

    h . “A single small water-worn tooth, 10.5 mm by 11 mm in crown diameter, signalizes the arrival of a member of the family of anthropoid Primates in North America in Middle Pliocene time.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 8, 15 August 1922, p. 245.

    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes25.html#wp1066250]]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  19. #1859
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Ape-Men? 3

    Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (i).

    Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (j). Its classification, Homo erectus,is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (k).

    i. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

    Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man” to Java “gibbon.” Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

    “Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

    “Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.” Ibid., p. 5.

    “The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.” W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

    W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man” at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt,In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link” would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

    C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu,Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

    Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.

    Hitching, pp. 208–209.

    Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.

    j. Ibid., pp. 108–138.

    Bowden, pp. 90–137.

    Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.

    k. [The reanalysis of Narmada Man]puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.”Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed?” Geotimes,October 1992, p. 11.

    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes25.html#wp1066250]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26.
    Last edited by Pahu; December 13th, 2017 at 10:19 AM.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  20. #1860
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 5th, 2011
    Age
    88
    Posts
    674
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Ape-Men? 4

    The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (m) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (n).

    The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (o).

    m. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327,21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.

    n. “We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo].” Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284,2 April 1999, p. 65.

    o. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.”

    “...the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Zuckerman, p. 78.

    “Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...”Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41,May 1979, p. 273.

    Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258,4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.

    “For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.”Zuckerman, p. 93.

    “His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s]scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.”Lewin, Bones of Contention,pp. 164–165.

    “This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

    [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes25.html#wp1066250]]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. ]
    Last edited by Pahu; December 20th, 2017 at 10:29 AM.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Page 93 of 94 FirstFirst ... 438391929394 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Lie and Fallacy of Evolution
    By DABEARS85 in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: July 12th, 2013, 08:45 PM
  2. Man Science is not Science at All
    By Ramon in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 12th, 2013, 06:34 AM
  3. Science Disproves Evolution
    By Pahu in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 05:53 PM
  4. evolutionist sister and my 2 yr old neice - conflict. any words?
    By Rissa77 in forum Christian Family Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: April 11th, 2011, 06:36 PM
  5. CREATION vs EVOLUTION: Faith vs Science
    By Knightjester in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: January 17th, 2010, 07:06 AM