Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Dec 23, 2015

Index Fossils 2

Evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular (b), many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected. [See"Out-of-Sequence Fossils"onhttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html#wp4031436]

b. “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.”R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica,Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.

“Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?”Larry Azar, “Biologists, Help!” BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714.

“A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it? “... the fossils do not form the kind of pattern that would be predicted using a simple NeoDarwinian model.”Thomas S. Kemp, “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, Vol. 108, 5 December 1985, p. 66.

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.”J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” Ibid., p. 53.

Although O’Rourke attempts to justify the practices of stratigraphers, he recognizes the inherent problems associated with such circular reasoning.

“But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.” Kitts, p. 466.

“It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.”Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record,3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), p. 98.

“The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity.”David M. Raup, “Geology and Creationism,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 21.

In a taped, transcribed, and approved 1979 interview with Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland asked Fisher how he dated certain fossils. Answer: “By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found.”When Sunderland asked if this was not circular reasoning, Fisher replied, “Of course; how else are you going to do it?” “The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It,” Bible-Science News Letter, December 1986, p. 6.

“The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity.”Bobb Schaeffer, Max K. Hecht, and Niles Eldredge, “Phylogeny and Paleontology,” Evolutionary Biology,Vol. 6 (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1972), p. 39.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences27.html#wp1655298From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Dec 30, 2015

Index Fossils 3

Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.[SUP]c[/SUP]How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?

Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs (d). Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been erroneously taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people (Was your ancestor a fish?).

c. Peter Forey, “A Home from Home for Coelacanths,” Nature, Vol. 395, 24 September 1998, pp. 319–320.

Since the above discovery near Indonesia in 1998, most coelacanths are being caught off the coast of northern Tanzania, 500 miles north of what was thought to be their old habitats. [See Constance Holden, “Saving the Coelacanth,” Science, Vol. 316, 8 June 2007, p. 1401.]

d. “Zoologists originally thought that the paired fins of coelacanths and the fossil lobe-fins functioned as true limbs, as props to lever the fish against the solid substrate of the bottom sand or against rocks.”Keith S. Thomson,Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Ltd., 1991), p. 160.

“...much attention has been focused on their fins in the hope that they will tell more about how fins became limbs.” Ommanney p. 74.

“For the coelacanth was a member of a very ancient class of fishes which was supposed to have disappeared some 70 million years ago. This great group of fishes, called crossopterygians, flourished during that decisive era in the history of the earth—when the fish, taking on legs and lungs, went forth to conquer the continents.”Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanth,” Scientific American,Vol. 193, December 1955, p. 34.

Dr. Jacques Millot, who headed many detailed studies of freshly caught coelacanths, still held out hope as of 1955: “Perhaps their stalked fins permit them to creep along the rocks like seals.” Ibid., p. 38.

This myth was buried only after Dr. Hans Fricke’s team observed coelacanths in their natural habitat in 1987. Their bottom fins have nothing to do with legs or creeping. Why did Millot ignore the facts he knew best? The coelacanth, he thought, solved a big problem. In 1955, Millot wrote:
“One of the great problems of evolution has been to find anatomical links between the fishes and their land-invading descendants...For a long time evolutionists were troubled by this major gap between fishes and the amphibians. But the gap has now been bridged by studies of ancient fishes, and this is where the coelacanth comes in.” Ibid., pp. 35–36.

Later (1987), after studying live coelacanths, the scientific world learned that Millot was wrong. The coelacanth did not bridge this gap. Therefore, the fish-to-amphibian problem is back.

“He [J. L. B. Smith] was able to report [in the journal Nature] that, like the lungfishes, the fish had an air bladder or lung (on the basis of the taxidermist’s report of the discarded viscera), which was a median rather than paired structure.”Thomson, Living Fossil,p. 39. [It is now recognized that the discarded “bag” was not a lung, but an oil-filled swimming bladder. W.B.]

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences27.html#wp1655298]

Pahu · Jan 6, 2016

Index Fossils 4

J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all (e). Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours (f).

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution (g). If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

e. “The brain of a 90-pound coelacanth weighs less than 50 grains[0.11 ounces]—that is, no more than one 15,000th of the body weight. No present-day vertebrate that we know of has so small a brain in relation to its size.”Millot, p. 39.

f. “I confess I’m sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins.”Hans Fricke, “Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot,” National Geographic, Vol. 173, June 1988, p. 838.

“...we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so.”Ibid., p. 837.

g. “Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as coelacanths. The cutaway drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million-year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany....Why have coelacanths remained virtually unchanged for eons...30 million generations?”Fricke, p. 833. [Answer: They were fossilized a few thousand years ago, at the time of the flood.]

“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution—that of the unequal plasticity of living things.” Millot, p. 37.

“The coelacanths have changed very little since their first known appearance in the Upper Devonian.”A. Smith Woodward, as quoted by Thomson, Living Fossil,p. 70.

“What is even more remarkable is that in spite of drastic changes in the world environment, the coelacanths are still much the same organically as their ancestors. ... In the meantime, research is continuing ... and will try to penetrate the secret of the adaptability which has enabled them to live through many geological eras under widely differing conditions without modifying their constitution.” Millot, p. 39.

“... the coelacanths have undergone little change in 300 million years...”Ommanney,p. 74.

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65.

Pahu · Jan 13, 2016

Humanlike Footprints

Humanlike footprints, supposedly 150–600 million years old, have been found in rock formations in Utah (a), Kentucky (b), Missouri (c), and possibly Pennsylvania (d). At Laetoli, in the east African country of Tanzania, a team headed by Mary Leakey found a sequence of humanlike footprints (e). They were dated at 3.7 million years. If human feet made any of these prints, then evolutionary chronology is drastically wrong.

Figure 30: Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite. In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found this and other apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the “heel.” The 10-inch-long shoe print is at the left, and its rock mold is to its right. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. Notice how the back of the heel is worn, just as most of our shoes wear today. The heel was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch deeper than the sole. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print.

a. Melvin A. Cook, “William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah,” Why Not Creation? editor Walter E. Lammerts (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 185–193.

Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology (San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1993), pp. 810–813.

b. “Geology and Ethnology Disagree about Rock Prints,” Science News Letter, 10 December 1938, p. 372.

c. Henry R. Schoolcraft and Thomas H. Benton, “Remarks on the Prints of Human Feet, Observed in the Secondary Limestone of the Mississippi Valley,” The American Journal of Science and Arts, Vol. 5, 1822, pp. 223–231.

d. “Human-Like Tracks in Stone are Riddle to Scientists,” Science News Letter,29 October 1938, pp. 278–279.

e. “‘Make no mistake about it,’ says Tim [White, who is probably recognized as the leading authority on the Laetoli footprints]. ‘They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn’t stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecines in books.’” Johanson and Edey, p. 250.

The big toe of Australopithecus africanus splayed out to the side, as in apes. Obviously, the Laetoli footprints were not made by Australopithecines, as most evolutionists claim.

“In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli Site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo. ... we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis.” Russell H. Tuttle, “The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History, Vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences28.html#wp1434426]

Pahu · Jan 20, 2016

Geologic Column

Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column”(a). Most “geologic periods” are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order (b). Even within the Grand Canyon, 100 million years of this imaginary column are missing (c). Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

a. “We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place.”Ager, Stratigraphical Record, p. 48.

b. John Woodmorappe, “The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, June 1981, pp. 46–71.

c. The missing geologic periods are the Ordovician and Silurian. The Great Unconformity at the base of the sedimentary layers marks an even greater time gap—over a billion years.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 66.

MikeHenderson · Jan 26, 2016

The Big Bang theory is nothing more that a lie from Satan.

I always ask people who believe in the Big Bang to answer these two questions.

1. Where did ALL the energy and matter come from that came from the Big Bang to create everything?

2. What event, or process, or power caused the Big Bang to occur?

To date NO one has been able to answer these questions!

Pahu · Jan 27, 2016

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 1

DNA.When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing (a). Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years (b). This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain, (c) 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves, (d) and 11–425-million-year-old salt crystals (e). Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old (f). DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old” fossilized fish (g) and possibly in a “80-million-year-old” dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed (h).Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120 million years old. (i).

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit (j). They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim (k).

a. This natural process is driven by the continual thermal vibrations of atoms in DNA. Just as marbles in a vibrating container always try to find lower positions, vibrating atoms tend to reorganize into arrangements with lower energies. Thus, DNA tends to form less energetic compounds such as water and carbon dioxide.

b. Bryan Sykes, “The Past Comes Alive,” Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.

“Many scientists still consider this idea [that DNA could last longer than 10,000 years]far fetched, but Poinar points out that not long ago few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. ‘When we started, we were told that we were crazy,’ he says.”Kathryn Hoppe, “Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA,” Science News,Vol. 142, 24 October 1992, p. 281.

c. Ewen Callaway, “Hominin DNA Baffles Experts,” Nature, Vol. 504, 5 December 2013. pp. 16–17.

d. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species,” Nature,Vol. 344, 12 April 1990, pp. 656–658.

DNA disintegrates faster when it is in contact with water. In commenting on the remarkably old DNA in a supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf, Svante Pääbo remarked,“The clay [in which the leaf was found] was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long.”Also see Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA,” Scientific American, Vol. 269, November 1993, p. 92. [Maybe those magnolia leaves are not 17 million years old.]

“That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected—almost unbelievable.”Jeremy Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy after Death,” Science,Vol. 253, 20 September 1991, p. 1354.

e. “Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years).”Steven A. Fish et al., “Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite,” Nature,Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

f. Eske Willerslev et al., “Diverse Plant and Animal Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments,” Science,Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, pp. 791–795.

g. Hoppe, p. 281.
Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science,Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.

h. “Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old.”Scott R. Woodward et al., “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science,Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human, or perhaps mammal, DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science,Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.

i. Hendrick N. Poinar et al., “DNA from an Extinct Plant,” Nature, Vol. 363, 24 June 1993, p. 677.

Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science,Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.

Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.

j.Tomas Lindahl is a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration. He tried to solve this problem of “old” DNA by claiming that all such discoveries resulted from contamination and poor measurement techniques. He wrote,“The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA.”[See Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:
George O. Poinar Jr., in “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700. (The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park.)

Edward M. Golenberg, “Antediluvian DNA Research,” Nature,Vol. 367, 24 February 1994, p. 692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

k. “We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA]degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all.”Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html]

mar09 · Jan 30, 2016

I like this thread, but wish i had the eyes i did at 12 to be able to read.

Pahu · Feb 3, 2016

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 2

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber (l). The same bacteria, Bacillus, are found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old (m). Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old

. Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins and Soft Tissue. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins (o), soft tissue (p), blood compounds (q) and other complex organic matter (r) preserved in dinosaur bones (s). Researchers were shocked to find soft tissue in eight pieces of a dinosaur’s toe, rib, hip, leg, and claw (t) Even dinosaur skin (from a hadrosaur) has been recovered and tasted (u). As with DNA, it is ridiculous to believe these remains have lasted 65–150 million years (v).

l. Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, “Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber,” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.

Many tests were preformed to rule out contamination. [See also F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano, “Age of Bacteria from Amber,” Science,Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]

“When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40 million years ancient] and they’re alive!”Joshua Fischman, “Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life?” Science,Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.

m. “There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period.”R. John Parkes, “A Case of Bacterial Immortality?” Nature,Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.

Russell H. Vreeland et al., “Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal,” Nature,Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.

Other tests have confirmed Vreeland’s discover described above. [See Cindy L. Satterfield et al., “New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal,” Geology,Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.]

n. See Endnote 97 on page 359.

o. Richard Monastersky, “Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils,” Science News,Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.

Gerard Muyzer et al., “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs,” Geology,Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.

p. “‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls[Mary]Schweitzer. ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science,Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

Blood vessels in bone appear to have been found in supposed 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones. [See “New Signs of Dinosaur Proteins,” Science, Vol. 350, 4 December 2015, p. 1137.]

“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ...”Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science,Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’”Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service,24 March 2005, p. 1.

Mary H. Schweitzer made these discoveries while completing her doctor’s degree under John “Jack” R. Horner, one of the world’s leading dinosaur researchers. Horner is the Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies, and was a technical advisor for the film Jurassic Park.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied,“Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.”Schweitzer replied,“Jack, its your dinosaur.”[See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

See the interview with Mary Schweitzer on “60 Minutes” at www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMI&feature =player_embedded
“Here we report on an exceptionally complete specimen (LACM 128319) of the moderately derived genus Platecarpus that preserves soft tissues and anatomical details ... .” Johan Lindgren et al., “Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur,” PloS ONE, 5(8) e11998, 2010.

q. Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.

r. “This discovery also provides the oldest evidence of in situ preservation of complex organic remains in a terrestrial vertebrate.” Robert R. Reisz et al., “Embryology of Early Jurassic Dinosaur from China with Evidence of Preserved Organic Remains,” Nature, Vol. 496, 11 April 2013, p. 210.

s.“We present multiple lines of evidence[from multiple independent institutions]that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis. ... Transparent, flexible vessels were observed; some contained spherical microstructures, whereas others contained an amorphous red substance that is superficially similar to degraded blood products in vessels recovered from extant bone.”Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequence of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis,”Science,Vol. 324, 1 May 2009, p. 626.

t. “What they found shocked them.” Robert F. Service, “Signs of Ancient Proteins Seen Inside Dinosaur Bones.” Science, Vol. 348, 12 June 2015, p. 1184.

u. “University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (65–100 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grand Prairie, Alberta. ... ‘As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary—this is real skin.’ ... this is only the third three-dimensional dinosaur skin specimen ever found worldwide. ... But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years.” Mark Ferguson, “Scientists Study Rare Dinosaur Skin Fossil at CLS,” Press Release, Canadian Light Source, 26 April 2013.

v.“There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?”Mary H. Schweitzer, “Blood from Stone,” Scientific American,Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

Schweitzer and the Scientific American editors cannot account for the supposed 67-million-year age of the soft tissue and blood Schweitzer found. The answer is simple; its age is only 1/10,000th of that age. She and the editors don’t understand the flood and the origin of earth’s radioactivity. [See pages 110–416.]

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html

Pahu · Feb 10, 2016

Human Artifacts

At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble (a), an iron pot (b), an iron instrument (c) an 8-karat gold chain (d), three throwing-spears (e), and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver (f). Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails (g), a screw (h), a strange coin (i) a tiny ceramic doll (j), and other objects of obvious human manufacture (k). By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

a. J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble,” American Antiquarian,Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332.

b. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly,Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202.

c. John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland,Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.

d. “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God,” Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1.

e. Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears,” Nature,Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768.

Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany,” Nature,Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810.

f. “A Relic of a By-Gone Age,” Scientific American,Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298.

g. David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain,” reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science,1844.

Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42.

h. Ibid.

i. J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth,” Bible-Science Newsletter,January 1979, p. 1.

j. Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300.

G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find,” American Antiquarian,Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381.

G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho,” Scribner’s Magazine,Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238.

k. Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period,” Anthropological Institute Journal,Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129.

J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble,” The American Journal of Science and Arts,January 1831, p. 361.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences31.html]

Pahu · Feb 17, 2016

Parallel Layers

Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in Earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (An unconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (called conformities)imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena (a), one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit (b).

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. [For an explanation of how conformable layers can have such different fossils, see pages 191–204]. Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! [See "Out-of-Sequence Fossils" on page 13].

Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory (c).

a. Geologists have known this for many years. [See Archibald Geikie, Text-Book of Geology (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1882), p. 602.]
b. Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 113.

c. “Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on.” William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth(Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219.

George McCready Price, The New Geology,2[SUP]nd[/SUP] edition (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1923), pp. 486, 500, 504, 506, 543, 620–627.

George McCready Price, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1926), pp. 90–104.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 70.

Pahu · Feb 24, 2016

A Young Universe?

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence:

Helium

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist,Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models(London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature,Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

mar09 · Feb 28, 2016

Pahu said:

Fruit Flies

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Just the first and last paragraphs make one believe that it is so (that science disproves evolution).

Pahu · Mar 2, 2016

Lead and Helium Diffusion

Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths.”Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science,16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13–14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ...” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters,Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175–195.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 72.

Pahu · Mar 9, 2016

Excess Fluid Pressure

Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks.”Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine,“Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.”Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

Cook,Prehistory and Earth Models,p. 341.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences36.html]

Pahu · Mar 14, 2016

Priceless! It really cracked me up.

*They don't make them like this anymore! *

DON’T TURN IT OFF WHEN OBAMA COMES ON, THERE’S ANOTHER ENDING.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wrRTau5jusU

Pahu · Mar 16, 2016

Volcanic Debris

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins,Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” Stansfield, p. 81.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences37.html#wp1260581]

Pahu · Mar 23, 2016

River Sediments

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old (a).

a. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77–83.
Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69–71.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 75.

Pahu · Mar 30, 2016

Continental Erosion

The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years. Something is wrong.

a. Nevins, pp. 80–81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491–504.
Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 65–67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ...” Dott and Batten, p. 133.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences39.html]

Pahu · Apr 6, 2016

Dissolved Metals

Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation.” Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water,” Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 77.

Science Disproves Evolution

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member