Evolution is a fact asked:
1-In your first rebuttal, you made the below statement;
"And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it."
Which whale(s) does this apply to and can you provide a diagram that shows the nasal passage moving up along the backside of the brain?
2- If hominids are not in fact our ancestors, perhaps you can clear some confusion by educating readers on which are ape and which are human (for reference, Chimpanzees have a brain size of roughly 410 cc, Gorillas 500 cc, and all of the hominids below were bipedal);
Australopithecus Afarensis (375-550 cc), Australopithecus Africanus (420-500 cc), Homo Habilis (500-650 cc), Homo Rudolfensis (600-800 cc), Homo Ergaster/Erectus (750 – 1250 cc), Homo Antecessor (1000 cc), Homo Sapien (1200 cc), Homo Sapien Sapien (1350 cc).
* Creation scientists are unable to agree amongst each other on which of these are apes and which are human, so your opinion may help create a consensus.
3-Urban legends and proven hoaxes (like the Paluxy Tracks) aside, why do we not find any remnants of human civilization (agriculture, buildings, boats, chariots, armor, weapons, art work, etc) in anything except the upper layers? Shouldn't the deposits from the flood have buried this all in place, and certainly lower than animals like the first reptiles (Carboniferous), Theropod Dinosaurs (Triassic) , Mammoths (Pleistocene), Archaeopteryx (Jurassic) ) that were fighting to make it to higher ground?
Dr. Jackson asked:
Three questions for EIAF:
1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would’ve arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Dr. Jackson's Closing Statement
The debate question submitted by EIAF (acronym for "Evolution is a Fact") was
"Does geology prove faunal succession?" Smokescreens and sidetracks aside, the burden of proof lied on the evolution side, as stated. Who won?
Does geology indeed prove faunal succession?
Yes -- in the eye of the evolutionist beholder. But if you take an objective look at the data, the evidence, the facts, the geology -- No. The affirmative stand and the negative stand each have insufficient data for a final case of proof, interpretations aside. No water-tight case of logic can be made for either side, as was seen.
However, the preponderance of logic applied to the evidence, I personally maintain is in favor of the position that geology does indeed in no way prove faunal succession. But that is merely my position. What does this mean?
This means that the original posit by EIAF is false. My position is that geology disproves faunal succession. EIAF did not need to negate my position in order to win in this exchange. However ... he did need to affirm his own position ... a task at which he failed.
Geology does not finally prove faunal succession. Go back over the exchanges to see this.
EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs." EIAF failed to explain the out-of-sync nature of each and every fossil sequence he described to the audience, which he held up as his "proofs."
EIAF preferred to use big-sounding words, pseudo-professional language, long-winded tirades, personal character attacks and rhetoric in general ... as opposed to logical and coherent case establishment. It was always difficult to blow away the fluff and somehow to find the meat of each of his arguments, in order to discuss them meaningfully. This exposes the weakness of his position in the end. My attacks were only on the statements that EIAF made -- not on his personal intelligence or integrity. Stick to the topic. Stick to the matters at hand. Any efforts at distraction from these betray the weakness of an argument. Each EIAF argument was such.
Readers may think that defending the positive assertion may have given EIAF an unfair disadvantage, since it has often been said that science cannot logically falsify anything. This is a myth. This I shall prove.
I challenge EIAF to another debate then, this time with my own positive assertion that "DNA Information proves Intelligent Design." Same rules. Same schedule. Same advantages and disadvantages, only with the tables turned. If I had the advantage in the last go-round, EIAF should logically then have the advantage in the next proposal. I stand on the positive assertion of the above statement. As with his embarrassment on human evolution, if EIAF is silent regarding this challenge, I pronounce this as concession of his defeat. If he accepts the challenge however, every reader will see ... that belief in evolution is belief in a sci-fi fantasy at best or a truth-suppressing conspiracy at worst.
The three questions and discussion following from the original debate strand, I propose to continue concurrent with the new and second debate strand. EIAF is afraid of the truth. He's afraid of change. I'm not here to tell you how this is all going to end. I'm here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to show these people something he does not want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without boundaries, without rules, a world without him. Where we go from here, is a choice I leave with you.
- Dr J
"Does geology prove faunal succession?" Smokescreens and sidetracks aside, the burden of proof lied on the evolution side, as stated. Who won?
Does geology indeed prove faunal succession?
Yes -- in the eye of the evolutionist beholder. But if you take an objective look at the data, the evidence, the facts, the geology -- No. The affirmative stand and the negative stand each have insufficient data for a final case of proof, interpretations aside. No water-tight case of logic can be made for either side, as was seen.
However, the preponderance of logic applied to the evidence, I personally maintain is in favor of the position that geology does indeed in no way prove faunal succession. But that is merely my position. What does this mean?
This means that the original posit by EIAF is false. My position is that geology disproves faunal succession. EIAF did not need to negate my position in order to win in this exchange. However ... he did need to affirm his own position ... a task at which he failed.
Geology does not finally prove faunal succession. Go back over the exchanges to see this.
EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs." EIAF failed to explain the out-of-sync nature of each and every fossil sequence he described to the audience, which he held up as his "proofs."
EIAF preferred to use big-sounding words, pseudo-professional language, long-winded tirades, personal character attacks and rhetoric in general ... as opposed to logical and coherent case establishment. It was always difficult to blow away the fluff and somehow to find the meat of each of his arguments, in order to discuss them meaningfully. This exposes the weakness of his position in the end. My attacks were only on the statements that EIAF made -- not on his personal intelligence or integrity. Stick to the topic. Stick to the matters at hand. Any efforts at distraction from these betray the weakness of an argument. Each EIAF argument was such.
Readers may think that defending the positive assertion may have given EIAF an unfair disadvantage, since it has often been said that science cannot logically falsify anything. This is a myth. This I shall prove.
I challenge EIAF to another debate then, this time with my own positive assertion that "DNA Information proves Intelligent Design." Same rules. Same schedule. Same advantages and disadvantages, only with the tables turned. If I had the advantage in the last go-round, EIAF should logically then have the advantage in the next proposal. I stand on the positive assertion of the above statement. As with his embarrassment on human evolution, if EIAF is silent regarding this challenge, I pronounce this as concession of his defeat. If he accepts the challenge however, every reader will see ... that belief in evolution is belief in a sci-fi fantasy at best or a truth-suppressing conspiracy at worst.
The three questions and discussion following from the original debate strand, I propose to continue concurrent with the new and second debate strand. EIAF is afraid of the truth. He's afraid of change. I'm not here to tell you how this is all going to end. I'm here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to show these people something he does not want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without boundaries, without rules, a world without him. Where we go from here, is a choice I leave with you.
- Dr J
Evolution is a Fact's Closing Statement
Dr Jackson, this debate has drawn to a close and readers who take the time to read the debate in its entirety will note that you have not even hit the surface in responding to my last rebuttal, and have left several facts unaccounted for, each of which individually point to faunal succession while disproving your global flood;
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Dr. Jackson's 2ND Rebuttal
The foundation of EIAF’s thinking is that only EIAF’s thinking is valid. This inertia puts not only all dissenting thought to quick dismissal, but also all dissenting data. Inability to see the facts can be demonstrated. We bring this thinking to light here, and also its particular misplaced claims.
He claims being “misquoted” with:
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless ‘tail’ vestige."
But he believes it. He says:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx.”
Evolution-thinking requires a crippling limit on the use of logic. It must say “we don’t need” a bone that anchors the muscles of childbirth, rectum control, lower back and rear abdomen. It must say “we don’t need” to sit down.
EIAF must deny medical fact and common knowledge, to keep EIAF thinking purely evolution based. There is no other analysis for his above statements.
EIAF tries to explain polystrate fossils with:
“There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck.”
What pushes trees vertically into the muck under a swamp, he cannot describe, since swamps do not explain polystrates.
He accepts a global flood on Mars. He denies a global Flood on Earth. His next descriptions of vertical deposition cannot fit a swamp – they can only fit a flood.
“Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find ‘polystrate trees’ from time to time.”
He offers no rationale other than the above, for vertical deposition.
“there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through.”
He does not see that a tree buried by “rapid sedimentation” is not younger than the sediments. He cannot see that he makes no case for his claim of how swamp polystrates form, but instead makes only the case for how Flood polystrates form. Swamps do not provide “rapid sedimentation.” Floods do. This style of thinking characterizes the EIAF perception in each setting of the debate.
EIAF complains:
“you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulotcetus’ length as a reference point for refuting whale evolution.”
This sentence (like many he writes) may sound meaningful. But what point does he make? Read before and after it, in context. When statements make a run of meaningful-sounding ideas, but never bring them to any point … that is rhetoric. Count the EIAF statements that drop the run, short of arriving at any logical point
EIAF says:
“there is no reason to believe that sedimentation nor erosion, should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.”
He then blind-sides himself by saying:
“Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states.”
“Thousands of miles” of “evenly layered beds” indeed is a reason to believe sedimentation happened uniformly – isn’t it? This is particularly true, if the turbidity currents are on the scale of the Earth Flood. There is no other explanation. But EIAF logic (“Evolution is a Fact” logic) is self-limiting to the exclusion of an Earth Flood.
EIAF says:
“the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna.”
If it is seamless, why does National Geographic (7/98, page 91) admit that the bird evolution sequence EIAF defends “is not a chronological progression”? The order of the “seamless” steps goes against their own dates for the fossils. A “120 million year-old” fossil comes first in the “seamless” order, then an 80Mya, then an 90Mya, then 120, then 120, then 150, and then 115. The sequence has now been put into all the textbooks, without any mention of the evo-dates for the fossils. Evo-thinking willingly assimilates all these contradictions … seamlessly.
Is this not a “theoretical finding that would indeed falsify faunal succession”? No logic can say it is otherwise.
EIAF asserts:
“Paleontologist have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to.”
He says there is “no way of knowing” any evo-sequence.
If he is right, then logic dictates that the statement “geology shows faunal succession” must always remain … an opinion only. That is inescapable to the honest mind. Our next round of question-answer and open discussion, will only further demonstrate the broken and non-seamless nature of this thinking.
He claims being “misquoted” with:
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless ‘tail’ vestige."
But he believes it. He says:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx.”
Evolution-thinking requires a crippling limit on the use of logic. It must say “we don’t need” a bone that anchors the muscles of childbirth, rectum control, lower back and rear abdomen. It must say “we don’t need” to sit down.
EIAF must deny medical fact and common knowledge, to keep EIAF thinking purely evolution based. There is no other analysis for his above statements.
EIAF tries to explain polystrate fossils with:
“There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck.”
What pushes trees vertically into the muck under a swamp, he cannot describe, since swamps do not explain polystrates.
He accepts a global flood on Mars. He denies a global Flood on Earth. His next descriptions of vertical deposition cannot fit a swamp – they can only fit a flood.
“Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find ‘polystrate trees’ from time to time.”
He offers no rationale other than the above, for vertical deposition.
“there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through.”
He does not see that a tree buried by “rapid sedimentation” is not younger than the sediments. He cannot see that he makes no case for his claim of how swamp polystrates form, but instead makes only the case for how Flood polystrates form. Swamps do not provide “rapid sedimentation.” Floods do. This style of thinking characterizes the EIAF perception in each setting of the debate.
EIAF complains:
“you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulotcetus’ length as a reference point for refuting whale evolution.”
This sentence (like many he writes) may sound meaningful. But what point does he make? Read before and after it, in context. When statements make a run of meaningful-sounding ideas, but never bring them to any point … that is rhetoric. Count the EIAF statements that drop the run, short of arriving at any logical point
EIAF says:
“there is no reason to believe that sedimentation nor erosion, should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.”
He then blind-sides himself by saying:
“Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states.”
“Thousands of miles” of “evenly layered beds” indeed is a reason to believe sedimentation happened uniformly – isn’t it? This is particularly true, if the turbidity currents are on the scale of the Earth Flood. There is no other explanation. But EIAF logic (“Evolution is a Fact” logic) is self-limiting to the exclusion of an Earth Flood.
EIAF says:
“the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna.”
If it is seamless, why does National Geographic (7/98, page 91) admit that the bird evolution sequence EIAF defends “is not a chronological progression”? The order of the “seamless” steps goes against their own dates for the fossils. A “120 million year-old” fossil comes first in the “seamless” order, then an 80Mya, then an 90Mya, then 120, then 120, then 150, and then 115. The sequence has now been put into all the textbooks, without any mention of the evo-dates for the fossils. Evo-thinking willingly assimilates all these contradictions … seamlessly.
Is this not a “theoretical finding that would indeed falsify faunal succession”? No logic can say it is otherwise.
EIAF asserts:
“Paleontologist have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to.”
He says there is “no way of knowing” any evo-sequence.
If he is right, then logic dictates that the statement “geology shows faunal succession” must always remain … an opinion only. That is inescapable to the honest mind. Our next round of question-answer and open discussion, will only further demonstrate the broken and non-seamless nature of this thinking.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's 2ND Rebuttal
Quote mines and straw man arguments won't make transitional fossils disappear. None of the articles you cite disqualify these fossils as you claim and in fact, they support them—which is why I have provided links to them. I sincerely hope that readers will take the time to read the articles in their entirety. And while I'm a big fan of both National Geographic and Newsweek, I am curious as to why you would use popular magazines as opposed to peer-reviewed works as "proof." You supplement these quote mines and false inferences with the usual "transitional species X must have evolved specifically from transitional species Y in order for the transition to be true" fallacy. But this is not how Evolution works.
These transitional fossils all appear in the fossil record above and below the fossils they unite. What make them transitional are their transitional features between the two types of animals (ie. reptiles and birds). Evolution works like a tree, not a ladder, and different species of the same order will evolve differently if at all depending on ecological factors. Paleontologists have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to. Fossilization is rare so while we can certainly research and understand the fauna that existed at a certain point in time, we can't expect to recover every single species.
Since you agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, let's talk about a handful (word limit) of its reptilian features, not found in modern birds; a reptilian mouth (teeth, and no bill or a beak), trunk region and vertebrae region are free (fused in modern birds), and its neck attaches to the skull from the rear (not the middle). Like other birds with reptilian features (such as Confucius-ornis), Archaeopteryx is found in the layers below fully modern birds but well above the first therapod dinosaurs. If a 1998 article mistakenly suggested that a certain therapod was ancestral to Archaeopteryx, it does not make either of their transitional features go away, nor does it change the fact that we find in them in the expected intermediate layers. The two transitions share a common ancestor, and Archaeopteryx simply had more modern avian features.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/98/dinosaurs/interview.html
Biologists don't create new orders like "dino-birds" for transitional forms. It's either classified as a dinosaur or a bird, and birds are generally considered "avian dinosaurs." Hence, "it's just a bird" is not a rebuttal, and nor does your Alan Feduccia (The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill) quote mine. Feduccia believes that birds (which you agree includes Archaeopteryx) evolved from non-therapod reptiles. The conclusion is still the same; Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil for the reasons I gave above. You also leave out the fact that other bird experts disagree with Feduccia, and also support the therapod-bird connection.
Whale Evolution
Tapirs in fact lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle (so its not a disqualifier). Whale expert Phillip Gingerich (who you yourself quote) says;
"Pakicetus has long been known to have cranial characteristics of both land and aquatic mammals"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200307/ai_n9246707/pg_13
Unfortunately the Nature article you quote costs $30 to view. However, in your search for truth, perhaps you'd be kind of enough to use your donated funds (that's what they're for, correct?) to pay for the rights to reprint the article in its entirety.
Your Ambulocetus comment is wholly unsupported, and I am in fact familiar with the source of your faulty claim. Below is a picture of a single Ambulocetus find, which was corss-referenced with other Ambulocetus finds. This is what Paleontologists DO.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg
Blow Hole Evolution is accounted for. The fossil record of the early cetaceans displays obvious nasal drift; Pakicetus (at the snout, like most land mammals), Rodhocetus (nasal passage above canine teeth), Basliosaurus (nasal passage along middle of snout).
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm
The reason there's no model for how a nasal passage made its way through a whale's brain is because it never happened. The blowhole is not "behind" the brain. This is an internet urban legend that refuses to go away. These diagrams/pictures should clear up some confusion.
http://www2.cruzio.com/~jaroyan/gfx/ex5b.gif http://digimorph.org/specimens/Tursiops_truncatus/
The length difference between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus is irrelevant as they are 15 million years apart (more than enough time for this kind of growth). Phrases like "next link" are part of the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument I mentioned above. Furthermore, you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulocetus' length as reference point for refuting whale evolution.
You have misquoted me here in regards to Basilosaurus legs, and in doing so, have admitted that we have find fully aquatic whales with legs in the layers preceding modern whales
"EIAF says they were "useless" vestiges from when whales used to walk on land."
The transition from fish-to-amphibians is a transition from fins to feet, not water-to-land. Acanthostega and Icthyostega do indeed show such characteristics (more than 5 digts, but less than what we find on fins). No one says they were supposed to be land-dwellers, so your response is again, another straw man argument. This is the conclusion of the article you quote mined.
"So fingers, toes, and other elements of a vertebrate limb evolved before tetrapods spent any quality time on land."
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm
Not much of a disqualifier. The water-to-land transition can be seen with Dendrerpeton acadianum (more of a transition from ancient to modern amphibian).
Both mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, so there is nothing contradictory about finding an ancient dog-sized mammal that could eat small dinosaurs (in an era where much larger dinosaurs existed). You have to explain why we don't find Elephants, Bears, Tigers or even any of the extinct megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, or Smilodons) in the same layers as dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html
The temporary disappearance of land animals weighing over 10 Kg from the fossil record between the Creataceous and Paleogence transition (upon which, we begin to gradually find larger and larger mammals and birds as we move up the layers) can be accounted by Faunal Succession and a meteor crashing into the earth wiping everything out except small animals, which would over time, produce larger animals to fulfill recently vacated niches. A global flood wiping out life that supposedly existed in tact all of these years cannot account for such.
Turbidity currents leave obvious traces: large and small clasts mixed together, flow marks, and hardly any fossils. Your ad hoc use of Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states in the center of the country. There is simply no evidence of such an event being the cause of the extinction of Cambrian sea life (which is why it's not taught). In addition to this most of the world's fossils are partial and disarticulated, which contradicts the idea of a quick burial (making it the exception, not the rule).
Furthermore, the lowest vertebrates we find in the fossil record, the Ostracoderms, are in fact, mostly found in freshwater deposits (meaning they weren't dwelling in ocean depths). There is also the problem of Teleost fish. This diverse class of fish dwells in multiple environments, including the ocean floor. If the flood destroyed bottom-dwellers first and buried them in the bottom layers, we should find them in the Cambrian. Yet we don't find them until the Triassic (6 Geological eras later).
So you are left with having to explain how the flood buried fresh water fish towards the bottom layers of sediment, bottom-dwelling sea creatures above, amphibians, and a myriad of land dwelling reptiles and mammals, all below whales. Archaeopteryx, and plenty other "perching birds" who according you, floated to the top, are also found below whales, and other semi-modern-to-modern mammals, including semi-aquatic mammals (like Ambulocetus and Seals) who in turn, don't show up until well above the first crocodilian and other ancient semi-aquatic reptiles (semi-aquatic creatures should have been buried uniformly right?). It also doesn't explain the huge gap between dinosaurs and megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, Indricotherium, etc), nor why we only find remnants of human civilization (ie. buildings and agriculture) in the top layers.
You have to explain why/how Kangaroos, Koalas, Thylacines (and the other marsupials limited to Australia), all uniformly up and left, solely to Australia, Dodo Birds (flightless and completely helpless against common predators) to the Mauritius islands (where such predators didn't exist until man brought them) and why/how Armadillos, Rattlesnakes, and Poison Dart Frogs scurried, slithered, and hopped solely to the new world after the flood. What prevented camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other strictly Old World animals capable of faster travel from doing the same if such a bridge was so recently available?
There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck. Erosion can cause sediment to be re-deposited. Geology 101.
You have also misquoted me with this comment;
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless "tail" vestige."
Vestigial Organs (as defined by the Medical Dictionary) - an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.
"Completely useless" is not the meaning of vestigial, but rather the straw man definition creationists use. Aside from the medical definition of vestigial, here is the description Darwin gave.
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." - Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chap 14.
Python Spurs
1-These spurs are accompanied by a pelvic girdle (coincidently, so are legs).
2-Only males use them for mating yet females have them as well.
3-Like other snakes, python embryos have legs which they reabsorb (though pythons only reabsorb them to a point—at which point creationists believe they become spurs and not legs at all).
4-Other snakes apparently mate just fine without spurs.
5-Male pythons that have lost their spurs, apparently still mate
6-The anatomy of Pachyrhachis Problematicus (ancient fossilized snakes with limbs which we find in the same overall part of the world where we find Pythons) suggests close relationship to Pythons/Boas.
7-The tiny leg stubs we find in Pachyrhachis Problematicus wouldn't have allowed them to walk upright (therefore this doesn't validate the Genesis story).
Coccyx
Apparently we don't need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx). Coccydynia is the inflammation of the bony area (tailbone or coccyx) located between the buttocks is referred to as coccydynia. Coccydynia is associated with pain and tenderness at the tip of the tailbone between the buttocks. The pain is often worsened by sitting. The coccyx manifests itself as a TAIL in our embryonic stage, during which time it becomes reabsorbed to the point of becoming a coccyx. Evolution is stuck to "modifying what's there" whereas a Creator can create anything he/she wants. Think about it.
Wisdom Teeth
Interesting take on wisdom teeth. Now you have to explain why we're required to lose other teeth in order for these 3rd molars to become useful, and why suffering from them results from having the hygiene that allows you to keep all of our teeth.
The fossil record shows faunal succession, including transitional forms, and the creationist response to this is full of dishonest quote mining and straw man arguments.
These transitional fossils all appear in the fossil record above and below the fossils they unite. What make them transitional are their transitional features between the two types of animals (ie. reptiles and birds). Evolution works like a tree, not a ladder, and different species of the same order will evolve differently if at all depending on ecological factors. Paleontologists have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to. Fossilization is rare so while we can certainly research and understand the fauna that existed at a certain point in time, we can't expect to recover every single species.
Since you agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, let's talk about a handful (word limit) of its reptilian features, not found in modern birds; a reptilian mouth (teeth, and no bill or a beak), trunk region and vertebrae region are free (fused in modern birds), and its neck attaches to the skull from the rear (not the middle). Like other birds with reptilian features (such as Confucius-ornis), Archaeopteryx is found in the layers below fully modern birds but well above the first therapod dinosaurs. If a 1998 article mistakenly suggested that a certain therapod was ancestral to Archaeopteryx, it does not make either of their transitional features go away, nor does it change the fact that we find in them in the expected intermediate layers. The two transitions share a common ancestor, and Archaeopteryx simply had more modern avian features.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/98/dinosaurs/interview.html
Biologists don't create new orders like "dino-birds" for transitional forms. It's either classified as a dinosaur or a bird, and birds are generally considered "avian dinosaurs." Hence, "it's just a bird" is not a rebuttal, and nor does your Alan Feduccia (The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill) quote mine. Feduccia believes that birds (which you agree includes Archaeopteryx) evolved from non-therapod reptiles. The conclusion is still the same; Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil for the reasons I gave above. You also leave out the fact that other bird experts disagree with Feduccia, and also support the therapod-bird connection.
Whale Evolution
Tapirs in fact lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle (so its not a disqualifier). Whale expert Phillip Gingerich (who you yourself quote) says;
"Pakicetus has long been known to have cranial characteristics of both land and aquatic mammals"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200307/ai_n9246707/pg_13
Unfortunately the Nature article you quote costs $30 to view. However, in your search for truth, perhaps you'd be kind of enough to use your donated funds (that's what they're for, correct?) to pay for the rights to reprint the article in its entirety.
Your Ambulocetus comment is wholly unsupported, and I am in fact familiar with the source of your faulty claim. Below is a picture of a single Ambulocetus find, which was corss-referenced with other Ambulocetus finds. This is what Paleontologists DO.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg
Blow Hole Evolution is accounted for. The fossil record of the early cetaceans displays obvious nasal drift; Pakicetus (at the snout, like most land mammals), Rodhocetus (nasal passage above canine teeth), Basliosaurus (nasal passage along middle of snout).
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm
The reason there's no model for how a nasal passage made its way through a whale's brain is because it never happened. The blowhole is not "behind" the brain. This is an internet urban legend that refuses to go away. These diagrams/pictures should clear up some confusion.
http://www2.cruzio.com/~jaroyan/gfx/ex5b.gif http://digimorph.org/specimens/Tursiops_truncatus/
The length difference between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus is irrelevant as they are 15 million years apart (more than enough time for this kind of growth). Phrases like "next link" are part of the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument I mentioned above. Furthermore, you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulocetus' length as reference point for refuting whale evolution.
You have misquoted me here in regards to Basilosaurus legs, and in doing so, have admitted that we have find fully aquatic whales with legs in the layers preceding modern whales
"EIAF says they were "useless" vestiges from when whales used to walk on land."
The transition from fish-to-amphibians is a transition from fins to feet, not water-to-land. Acanthostega and Icthyostega do indeed show such characteristics (more than 5 digts, but less than what we find on fins). No one says they were supposed to be land-dwellers, so your response is again, another straw man argument. This is the conclusion of the article you quote mined.
"So fingers, toes, and other elements of a vertebrate limb evolved before tetrapods spent any quality time on land."
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm
Not much of a disqualifier. The water-to-land transition can be seen with Dendrerpeton acadianum (more of a transition from ancient to modern amphibian).
Both mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, so there is nothing contradictory about finding an ancient dog-sized mammal that could eat small dinosaurs (in an era where much larger dinosaurs existed). You have to explain why we don't find Elephants, Bears, Tigers or even any of the extinct megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, or Smilodons) in the same layers as dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html
The temporary disappearance of land animals weighing over 10 Kg from the fossil record between the Creataceous and Paleogence transition (upon which, we begin to gradually find larger and larger mammals and birds as we move up the layers) can be accounted by Faunal Succession and a meteor crashing into the earth wiping everything out except small animals, which would over time, produce larger animals to fulfill recently vacated niches. A global flood wiping out life that supposedly existed in tact all of these years cannot account for such.
Turbidity currents leave obvious traces: large and small clasts mixed together, flow marks, and hardly any fossils. Your ad hoc use of Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states in the center of the country. There is simply no evidence of such an event being the cause of the extinction of Cambrian sea life (which is why it's not taught). In addition to this most of the world's fossils are partial and disarticulated, which contradicts the idea of a quick burial (making it the exception, not the rule).
Furthermore, the lowest vertebrates we find in the fossil record, the Ostracoderms, are in fact, mostly found in freshwater deposits (meaning they weren't dwelling in ocean depths). There is also the problem of Teleost fish. This diverse class of fish dwells in multiple environments, including the ocean floor. If the flood destroyed bottom-dwellers first and buried them in the bottom layers, we should find them in the Cambrian. Yet we don't find them until the Triassic (6 Geological eras later).
So you are left with having to explain how the flood buried fresh water fish towards the bottom layers of sediment, bottom-dwelling sea creatures above, amphibians, and a myriad of land dwelling reptiles and mammals, all below whales. Archaeopteryx, and plenty other "perching birds" who according you, floated to the top, are also found below whales, and other semi-modern-to-modern mammals, including semi-aquatic mammals (like Ambulocetus and Seals) who in turn, don't show up until well above the first crocodilian and other ancient semi-aquatic reptiles (semi-aquatic creatures should have been buried uniformly right?). It also doesn't explain the huge gap between dinosaurs and megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, Indricotherium, etc), nor why we only find remnants of human civilization (ie. buildings and agriculture) in the top layers.
You have to explain why/how Kangaroos, Koalas, Thylacines (and the other marsupials limited to Australia), all uniformly up and left, solely to Australia, Dodo Birds (flightless and completely helpless against common predators) to the Mauritius islands (where such predators didn't exist until man brought them) and why/how Armadillos, Rattlesnakes, and Poison Dart Frogs scurried, slithered, and hopped solely to the new world after the flood. What prevented camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other strictly Old World animals capable of faster travel from doing the same if such a bridge was so recently available?
There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck. Erosion can cause sediment to be re-deposited. Geology 101.
You have also misquoted me with this comment;
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless "tail" vestige."
Vestigial Organs (as defined by the Medical Dictionary) - an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.
"Completely useless" is not the meaning of vestigial, but rather the straw man definition creationists use. Aside from the medical definition of vestigial, here is the description Darwin gave.
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." - Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chap 14.
Python Spurs
1-These spurs are accompanied by a pelvic girdle (coincidently, so are legs).
2-Only males use them for mating yet females have them as well.
3-Like other snakes, python embryos have legs which they reabsorb (though pythons only reabsorb them to a point—at which point creationists believe they become spurs and not legs at all).
4-Other snakes apparently mate just fine without spurs.
5-Male pythons that have lost their spurs, apparently still mate
6-The anatomy of Pachyrhachis Problematicus (ancient fossilized snakes with limbs which we find in the same overall part of the world where we find Pythons) suggests close relationship to Pythons/Boas.
7-The tiny leg stubs we find in Pachyrhachis Problematicus wouldn't have allowed them to walk upright (therefore this doesn't validate the Genesis story).
Coccyx
Apparently we don't need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx). Coccydynia is the inflammation of the bony area (tailbone or coccyx) located between the buttocks is referred to as coccydynia. Coccydynia is associated with pain and tenderness at the tip of the tailbone between the buttocks. The pain is often worsened by sitting. The coccyx manifests itself as a TAIL in our embryonic stage, during which time it becomes reabsorbed to the point of becoming a coccyx. Evolution is stuck to "modifying what's there" whereas a Creator can create anything he/she wants. Think about it.
Wisdom Teeth
Interesting take on wisdom teeth. Now you have to explain why we're required to lose other teeth in order for these 3rd molars to become useful, and why suffering from them results from having the hygiene that allows you to keep all of our teeth.
The fossil record shows faunal succession, including transitional forms, and the creationist response to this is full of dishonest quote mining and straw man arguments.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Dr. Jackson's Rebuttal
EIAF chose the topic "Geology Shows Fauna Succession." So, let’s stick to that only. It took two sentences for EIAF to argue the geologic Law of Superposition. That’s easy. Sediments do settle into rock layers from bottom to top. It took 1800 words for him to argue the “law” of faunal succession (evolution of animals). EIAF claims “there is evidence” a lot, but just saying it isn’t enough. Even his few examples are only opinion and interpretation, as we will see.
Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.
Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.
What proof did EIAF actually give?
He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.
EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.
EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.
EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.
Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.
EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.
EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.
EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.
Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.
All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.
Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J
Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.
Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.
What proof did EIAF actually give?
He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.
EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.
EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.
EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.
Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.
EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.
EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.
EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.
Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.
All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.
Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's Rebuttal
How did Noah get Kangaroos to Australia?
Short of calling the entire Geology and Paleontology communities a group of liars, you'll be hard-pressed to make the case that we find the same fauna throughout these superpositioned layers. Furthermore, your use of the word Phylum leaves your argument a bit vague and overbroad and may confuse readers, as they may not be aware that "Phylum" is an extremely generic classification system, since everything from humans to the most primitive fish (along with every other vertebrate; like birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc) belong to the Phylum of Chordata. So technically your statement is true, since the primitive fish of the Cambrian fall into the same exact Phylum as we do. However, this does nothing to change the fact that we find a gradation of different Chordates as we move up the layers. Readers who are not familiar with the meaning of "Phylum" may think you are making the argument that we indeed find modern mammals and reptiles in Cambrian, Ordivivian, Silaurian and all the other ancient layers where the only vertebrates we find are still primitive fish.
Within the Pre-Cambrian, the Vendian layers clearly contain a limited number of primitive animals. So far, Profiera (sponges) have been discovered in this layer, as well as a number of other primitive orders. Dickinsonia, Cyclomedusa, Eoporpita, Arkarua, Kimberella are a few examples of Vendian layer creatures with semblance to modern day counterparts, yet sometimes difficult to categorize due to anatomical differences. It is clear that we find more than just microbes in the layers preceding Chordates.
I am unaware that anyone has ever proposed the idea that flying squirrels were ancestral to bats. There is no reason modern flying squirrels should possess the exact characteristics between bats and their ancestors as they are contemporaneous to one another. Generally when Creationists refer to transitional forms they are referring to fossils that "should" contain the intermediate steps between two types of animals. Such transitions have indeed been recovered. In addition to the examples I gave in my opening statement, I would also like to refer to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, as they provide excellent examples of the transition from fish to amphibians. They are found in the upper Devonian; well 'above' the layers we first start finding fish and well before the layers we start finding amphibians and reptiles.
There are a number of Paleontological facts that disqualify a worldwide flood as the cause of fossil placement. First there is no reason that a flood should bury marine animals as they should be most likely to survive a flood given that they are already suited for living in water and it seems unlikely that the existence of more water would not only cause their deaths, but do so before animals not suited for an aquatic life.
There is also the task of explaining how and why Noah's ark would have been able to leave the animals in the various continents. Because we only find Kangaroos (and their fossils) and other large Marsupials in Australia, one would have a hard time explaining how and why this is the case in the context of a worldwide flood and an ark that preserved a few animals. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if these animals share a common ancestry with their placental relatives whom they were isolated from due to the shifting of continents, and fulfilled parallel niches within Australia via speciation. Unlike the flood/ark conjecture, faunal succession/common ancestry along with continental drift explains why we find fossilized lions (even larger than contemporary African lions) here in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Komodo Dragons, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tigers, Seals, and Peacocks should have survived the flood, while Mosasaurs, Mammoths, Tricerotops, Velociraptors, Ambulecetus, and Archaeopteryxes didn't. Not only is there no reason for a flood to wipe our sea dwelling creatures, but they themselves should not exist in the sequence they do. If a flood is somehow responsible for the destruction of sea life, there is no reason whales should only exist in the upper layers (starting with the Palogene), when we find rudimentary variations of fish (as opposed to modern fish) as low as the Cambrian. In addition to the wide berth between whales and ancient fish, we find plenty of land dwelling vertebrates in between the two, in addition to animal burrows (meaning the deposits must have happened over time).
If the flood is responsible for the extinction of certain birds, then you have to explain how flightless birds like Dodos and Ostriches survived the same.If a flood happened today, it would not bury life in the same order as Evolutionary Theory. Furthermore, we would find remnants of human civilization buried and mixed along the same layers as everything else, not merely in the upper layers. Given that reptiles and amphibians tend to be well-adapted to water, we would find them in layers above many if not most of the mammals, since many mammals are simply not accustomed to water. Fish would be the most successful given the fact that their environment would only becoming larger. Arthropods not suited for water, such as Scorpions and Praying Mantises would not survive such a flood.
The flood and ark explanation provides nothing more than a series of ad hoc explanations for the placement of fossils, and requires even more ad hoc explanations for the various discrepancies and contradictions it creates.
Short of calling the entire Geology and Paleontology communities a group of liars, you'll be hard-pressed to make the case that we find the same fauna throughout these superpositioned layers. Furthermore, your use of the word Phylum leaves your argument a bit vague and overbroad and may confuse readers, as they may not be aware that "Phylum" is an extremely generic classification system, since everything from humans to the most primitive fish (along with every other vertebrate; like birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc) belong to the Phylum of Chordata. So technically your statement is true, since the primitive fish of the Cambrian fall into the same exact Phylum as we do. However, this does nothing to change the fact that we find a gradation of different Chordates as we move up the layers. Readers who are not familiar with the meaning of "Phylum" may think you are making the argument that we indeed find modern mammals and reptiles in Cambrian, Ordivivian, Silaurian and all the other ancient layers where the only vertebrates we find are still primitive fish.
Within the Pre-Cambrian, the Vendian layers clearly contain a limited number of primitive animals. So far, Profiera (sponges) have been discovered in this layer, as well as a number of other primitive orders. Dickinsonia, Cyclomedusa, Eoporpita, Arkarua, Kimberella are a few examples of Vendian layer creatures with semblance to modern day counterparts, yet sometimes difficult to categorize due to anatomical differences. It is clear that we find more than just microbes in the layers preceding Chordates.
I am unaware that anyone has ever proposed the idea that flying squirrels were ancestral to bats. There is no reason modern flying squirrels should possess the exact characteristics between bats and their ancestors as they are contemporaneous to one another. Generally when Creationists refer to transitional forms they are referring to fossils that "should" contain the intermediate steps between two types of animals. Such transitions have indeed been recovered. In addition to the examples I gave in my opening statement, I would also like to refer to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, as they provide excellent examples of the transition from fish to amphibians. They are found in the upper Devonian; well 'above' the layers we first start finding fish and well before the layers we start finding amphibians and reptiles.
There are a number of Paleontological facts that disqualify a worldwide flood as the cause of fossil placement. First there is no reason that a flood should bury marine animals as they should be most likely to survive a flood given that they are already suited for living in water and it seems unlikely that the existence of more water would not only cause their deaths, but do so before animals not suited for an aquatic life.
There is also the task of explaining how and why Noah's ark would have been able to leave the animals in the various continents. Because we only find Kangaroos (and their fossils) and other large Marsupials in Australia, one would have a hard time explaining how and why this is the case in the context of a worldwide flood and an ark that preserved a few animals. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if these animals share a common ancestry with their placental relatives whom they were isolated from due to the shifting of continents, and fulfilled parallel niches within Australia via speciation. Unlike the flood/ark conjecture, faunal succession/common ancestry along with continental drift explains why we find fossilized lions (even larger than contemporary African lions) here in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Komodo Dragons, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tigers, Seals, and Peacocks should have survived the flood, while Mosasaurs, Mammoths, Tricerotops, Velociraptors, Ambulecetus, and Archaeopteryxes didn't. Not only is there no reason for a flood to wipe our sea dwelling creatures, but they themselves should not exist in the sequence they do. If a flood is somehow responsible for the destruction of sea life, there is no reason whales should only exist in the upper layers (starting with the Palogene), when we find rudimentary variations of fish (as opposed to modern fish) as low as the Cambrian. In addition to the wide berth between whales and ancient fish, we find plenty of land dwelling vertebrates in between the two, in addition to animal burrows (meaning the deposits must have happened over time).
If the flood is responsible for the extinction of certain birds, then you have to explain how flightless birds like Dodos and Ostriches survived the same.If a flood happened today, it would not bury life in the same order as Evolutionary Theory. Furthermore, we would find remnants of human civilization buried and mixed along the same layers as everything else, not merely in the upper layers. Given that reptiles and amphibians tend to be well-adapted to water, we would find them in layers above many if not most of the mammals, since many mammals are simply not accustomed to water. Fish would be the most successful given the fact that their environment would only becoming larger. Arthropods not suited for water, such as Scorpions and Praying Mantises would not survive such a flood.
The flood and ark explanation provides nothing more than a series of ad hoc explanations for the placement of fossils, and requires even more ad hoc explanations for the various discrepancies and contradictions it creates.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Creation vs Evolution Debate Intro.
We have all, at one point in our lives, wondered "How did we all get here?". This is a reasonable question and it has been asked for thousands for years! Through science, men and women have set out to answer that very question. Using different fields of science, these individuals have gathered information and evidence in the search for this answer (among many others).
Today, ELIE is very excited to announce that we will be hosting a debate that will feature 2 rival views of the Origin of Species!! Our 2 debators are:
1) Dr. G. Charles Jackson, who will be defending the view of Creation.
2) Evolution is a Fact, who will be defending the view of Evolution.
The topic of this debate will be "Does Geologic Record Show Faunal Succession?"
Here are the rules of the debate:
Opening Statements will be made by both parties on Friday, June 8th (as to avoid the possiblity of one party making their opening statement merely a 'first rebuttal' of the other party's opening statement) and will be a maxium of 2,000 words (quotes included)
The first 'first rebuttal' will be made by 'Evolution is a Fact' no later than Monday, June 11th and the second 'first rebuttal' will be made by Dr. Jackson no later Thursday, June 14th.. There will be a maxium of 1,750 words (quotes included)
The first 'second rebuttal' will be made by 'Evolution is a Fact' no later than Monday, June 18th and the second 'second rebuttal' will be made by Dr. Jackson no later than Friday, June 22nd.. There will be a maxium of 1,300 words (quotes included)
The closing statements will be made by both parties on Monday, June 25th.. There will be a maxium of 1,000 words (quotes included)
After the closing statements are made, each party will be allowed to ask the opposing party 3 questions (This will make up our 'Open Discussion' part of the debate)
These questions will be posted by Wednesday, June 27th.
Each party will have until Sunday, June 30th days to give a 1,000 word response to each question..
Then the debate will be over, and there will be a discussion of the debate going on on our myspace page.. www.myspace.com/lies_exposed
*Things that must be remembered.. The word limits are more guide-lines than LIMITS.. if thoughts need to be finished after the word limit has been exceeded that is fine.. but no new thoughts are to made after the word limit has been exceeded.. this is only fair..
Dr. Jackson's Opening Statement
"Does geology show faunal succession?" -- only in the minds of evolution-believers.
World-wide deposits of sandstone, limestone, ash, etc ... contain fossil bones, shells, and teeth of animals that were buried in sediments too quick for them to rot. Hard parts, mud-tracks, and few soft parts are all the evidence geology gives on the history of animals.
Fossils exist in all the layers of sediment-rock from every Phylum of Kingdom Animalia we see alive today (except the pre-Cambrian bottom layer which contains only microbes). This does not show a history of animals having once been all the same type, as evolution theory says. It does show a history of animals having always been different types, as creation theory says.
Groups of animals today have great differences in body plan. We see these same differences in the groups of fossil animals. Evolution-believers look for fossils that might show how these differences didn't exist between animals in the past, as they do now. Such fossils are called "missing-links" ... for a reason.
Sometimes a fossil might look like it has features that could show it is a missing-link. But each candidate is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. The flying squirrel might look like it has features that could show it is the missing-link between mice and bats, but it is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. This is the pattern of differences among living animals. This is the pattern of differences among fossil animals. There are living mice and bats. There are fossil mice and fossil bats. There are no mouse-bat fossils. Geology does not show that there used to be just only one type of animal. Geology shows that there have always been many types of animals.
If the Flood of Noah happened today, it would bury fossils in sediment deposits (from the deepest to the top layer) in an order that would go along with evolution theory. It would bury animals of Subphylum Vertebrata (animals with a backbone) in the order ... fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals. This would be the same order as the elevation of where they live ... which by sheer coincidence would go along with evolution theory. All other animals (Phylum Arthropoda and Phylum Mollusca, including all insects and snails) would also be buried in order of the elevation of where they live. But that order that would be out of sync with evolution theory.
What does geology show today about animals of the past? It shows all animal fossils were buried in an order that was out of sync with evolution theory ... except for the order of fossils that evolution-believers wish to see for vertebrates transitioning from water to land. But the Flood of Noah buried those fossils in water-to-land order anyway, without evolution having anything to do with it. Geology shows creation theory is right on all points of animal history. Geology shows evolution theory is wrong on all but one. Even on that one point, the suggested link-fossils are all in the same sediment layer (Devonian), and are disqualified by features that show that they are clearly not the missing-links needed for evolution to be true.
World-wide deposits of sandstone, limestone, ash, etc ... contain fossil bones, shells, and teeth of animals that were buried in sediments too quick for them to rot. Hard parts, mud-tracks, and few soft parts are all the evidence geology gives on the history of animals.
Fossils exist in all the layers of sediment-rock from every Phylum of Kingdom Animalia we see alive today (except the pre-Cambrian bottom layer which contains only microbes). This does not show a history of animals having once been all the same type, as evolution theory says. It does show a history of animals having always been different types, as creation theory says.
Groups of animals today have great differences in body plan. We see these same differences in the groups of fossil animals. Evolution-believers look for fossils that might show how these differences didn't exist between animals in the past, as they do now. Such fossils are called "missing-links" ... for a reason.
Sometimes a fossil might look like it has features that could show it is a missing-link. But each candidate is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. The flying squirrel might look like it has features that could show it is the missing-link between mice and bats, but it is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. This is the pattern of differences among living animals. This is the pattern of differences among fossil animals. There are living mice and bats. There are fossil mice and fossil bats. There are no mouse-bat fossils. Geology does not show that there used to be just only one type of animal. Geology shows that there have always been many types of animals.
If the Flood of Noah happened today, it would bury fossils in sediment deposits (from the deepest to the top layer) in an order that would go along with evolution theory. It would bury animals of Subphylum Vertebrata (animals with a backbone) in the order ... fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals. This would be the same order as the elevation of where they live ... which by sheer coincidence would go along with evolution theory. All other animals (Phylum Arthropoda and Phylum Mollusca, including all insects and snails) would also be buried in order of the elevation of where they live. But that order that would be out of sync with evolution theory.
What does geology show today about animals of the past? It shows all animal fossils were buried in an order that was out of sync with evolution theory ... except for the order of fossils that evolution-believers wish to see for vertebrates transitioning from water to land. But the Flood of Noah buried those fossils in water-to-land order anyway, without evolution having anything to do with it. Geology shows creation theory is right on all points of animal history. Geology shows evolution theory is wrong on all but one. Even on that one point, the suggested link-fossils are all in the same sediment layer (Devonian), and are disqualified by features that show that they are clearly not the missing-links needed for evolution to be true.
Evolution Is A Fact's Opening Statement
A simple Geology principle known as superpositioning describes how lower strata tend to be older than the strata above them. The existence superpositioned layers is caused by the deposition that takes place over the different Geological eras. Erosion takes away from these sediment layers. So while the order of successive layers are consistent, the layers for each Geological era do not exist in uniform sediment thickness, because desposition and erosion do not happen uniformly throughout the world, nor at the same time.
Simple physics (ie. gravity) and common sense makes it apparent that the lower strata are older as they have to be formed in order for more sediment to be deposited above them. There are a few exceptions to this of course; thrust faults and folds for examples can cause contortions in the layers. The existence of folds and thrust folds have are well understood and can be checked for, and they are by and far the exception to the rule.
The Geophysics principles mentioned above were actually known before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, and were therefore not created for the sake of arguing evolution. Rather Evolution is in fact, largely born of the Geological history and the order of the fauna within. The men who founded modern Geology were in fact Christian, which is why Old Earth Creationism (known today as Progressive Creationism, and is sometimes mixed and matched with Theistic Evolution) predates the theory of Evolution. The geologic column and the law of faunal succession show us that the Earth's fauna have appeared in a certain order, and Evolution simply explains the cause of this reality.
To oversimplify what we find in these successive layers; we find fish before we find amphibians, which we find before we find reptiles, which we find before we find birds. A similar succession of fauna can be applied to the faunal succession leading to humans and whales. Furthermore, we find representations of transitional fossils ("in betweens") in the layers we'd expect them to if certain orders of animals evolved from others.
So for example, we find Archaeopteryx (a bird with reptilian features not found in modern day birds) in the layers of the Jurassic while we don't find modern birds until the upper layers. Conversely, we don't find birds in the strata below Archaeopteryx. It's clear that birds evolved from reptiles. Whether they did so from therapod dinosaurs (as most Paleontologists claim) or from non-dinosaur archosaurs (still a reptile) as a smaller minority claim, the point is still the same; reptiles with bird-like features and birds with reptilian features both appear during the Jurassic period (before modern birds but well after the first reptiles).
Whales are another example of faunal succession. We don't find whales in the same strata as any of the ancient Devonian fish. Rather, we only find them in the strata well above Devonian period. This would not be the case if they "appeared" at the same time as the first fish. Furthermore, there exist a few examples of fossilized transitions between land mammals and whales. Between fossilized mammals such as Pakicetus, Ambulecetus Natans, and Basiliosaurus, who show up in the fossil record well after the first mammals appear but well before modern whales do, it's clear that whales evolved from land mammals with physical characteristics similar to sea lions. The transition in pelvis, blow hole, and legs to flippers are accounted for in this sequence of animals with semi-aquatic features.
Given the succession of fossils we find in the strata, its clear that the first animals were sea dwelling creatures. Land dwelling creatures show up later (higher) in the strata. In between these two we find fossils that are clearly transitional between fish and amphibians. The succession of these creatures all follow the same basic body pattern, which tells us that the Earth's fauna share common ancestry. Furthermore, the fauna found in the upper layers become more and more diverse. At some point the only tetrapods we find are fish-amphibians. But as we move 'higher' in the strata, we find more and more diversity as we begin to find different types of reptiles in greater numbers and diversity, and eventually mammals and birds as well, also in greater numbers and diversity within each off these groups as we move higher in the strata. Furthermore, the fauna we find in the upper layers closer resemble their contemporary counterparts than what we find in the layers below.
These Paleontological discoveries can and are also cross-referenced by Geographic location of fossils, in addition to the homological and vestigial structures in modern day fauna (since the Geological record showcases faunal succession that leads to what we have now).
Both ape and early-to-mid hominid fossils are only found in Africa and Asia which, consequently happens to be the only place where modern day apes exist. Again, there is no reason why this should be the case, unless they evolved more recently than say, monkeys, which do inhabit other parts of the world. Again, primates such as monkeys show up well before later primates.
Speaking of apes and hominids; Paleoanthropology reveals a group of hominids that demonstrate the intermediate steps between ape and humans. From Australopithecus Afarensis and Africanus, Homo Rudolfensis, Habilis, Ergaster, Antecessor, and Archaic Homo Sapien to modern Homo Sapien, we see a gradual increase in brain size; from 410 CC (about the size of a Chimpanzee) to modern homo sapiens (1300 CC). Not only this, but we find that the gradual increase in brain size is accompanied by other features that become less and less ape-like, and more and more human. Brow Ridges, Sagittal Crests, Jaw sizes, and the spine becomes better adapted for bipedalism. Hominid fossils provide such a clear gradient that Creation scientists can't seem to agree which are ape and which are human.
Faunal succession shows us that tails have been common in all tetrapods that lead to apes, who, like us, contain a vestigial tail (coccyx). The fossil record also shows that our ancestors, much like today's great apes, had large powerful molars for which to chew thick vegetation. In humans, this results in wisdom teeth; vestigial teeth whose poor structure cause pain in one third of adults and in some cases, can even cause death. Coincidentally, hominid fossils show a succession towards smaller and smaller jaws which would indeed result in this crammed nature of the human jaw.
In regards to snakes, fossils like Pachyrhachis problematicus make it clear that snakes evolved from legged reptiles. Not only do we find fossilized snakes with small but pronounced legs, we find them in the East, where modern day Pythons exist. Coincidentally some Pythons have leg remnants.
Creationists have indeed raised objections to the fossil record. But they are based on a general misunderstanding of the Geologic Column. A few examples;
The Geologic Column doesn't exist/is mostly missing/only exists in text books, etc.
This stems from a common misunderstanding of what the geologic column is. Some creationists think of it a place, like Mount Rushmore and sarcastically ask "where is it then?" Others believe that a certain level of sediment must exist for the layers for the column to be real and tend to come up with interesting numbers in regards to the miles of sediment that "should" exist for the column to be real. What they appear to do is take the maximum height of sediment found for specific eras in different parts of the world, and create hypothetical "height requirement" for superpositioned layers and sometimes argue that should all exist in the same parts of the world.
This however, is a gross misunderstanding of Geophysics as there is no reason to believe that sedimentation (which creates the layers) nor erosion (which chips away from them), should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.
What makes the column and faunal succession a reality is the fact that we find the same sets of fauna in the same layers throughout the world. The Geologic Column therefore represents a series of sedimentary layers that can be cross-referenced and validated or falsified. 200 years of Geology has only served to solidify the reality of faunal succession.
There are certain theoretical findings that would indeed falsify faunal succession; like finding spear points in a Triceratops (as we do in mammoths). A fossil (or even a living animal) that fell outside of the same pattern of animal would also provide falsification. Whether contemporary or solely in the fossil record, a 6-legged mammal, a bird with wings plus 4 appendages, or a spider with wings would not be explainable within the confines of the evolutionary tree, yet "explicable" by "separate creation." Instead, we find fauna that not only existence in sequence, but do so in a limited pattern. Adaptation explains why the world's fauna would appear in this manner, whereas a conscious creator would have no pattern or timeline to have to adhere to.
Polystrate trees and fossils.
Creationists often assert that fossils or objects such as trees that penetrate a certain amount of sediment and therefore existing in a "polystrate" manner, disprove the Geological consensus that these layers represent different Geological eras. However, the problem with this argument is that it ignores 2 basic geological principles; rapid sedimentation, and cross-cutting.
Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Often times this provides for the best preservation of fossils as it causes for a quick burial that allows the creature to be preserved intact as it avoids being torn to pieces by predators or scavengers, and the carcass is shielded from erosion (assuming is doesn't become unearthed by other occurrences, thereby being exposed to such). Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find "polystrate trees" from time to time.
Then there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through (this is common sense as an object can't cut through sediment that doesn't exist yet). It's a known Geological fact that layers of strata can be penetrated by newer objects. One example of this would be a water logged tree being dragged down into mud, which can take centuries to harden. Creationists often use these instances as 'proof' that the Earth's sediment must be young.
Folds and thrust faults can also cause the layers to overlap and overturn. Again, these are Geological occurrences that have been known and checked for. They are nothing new, but Creationists tend to ignore them and instead look for discrepancies wherever they think they can find them.
The Geological record clearly shows a succession of species that appear from simple to complex, form sparse in diversity to more abundant. It is clear that over time, different creatures 'appeared' to fill more and more specific niches, and the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna. Evolution explains this fact.
Simple physics (ie. gravity) and common sense makes it apparent that the lower strata are older as they have to be formed in order for more sediment to be deposited above them. There are a few exceptions to this of course; thrust faults and folds for examples can cause contortions in the layers. The existence of folds and thrust folds have are well understood and can be checked for, and they are by and far the exception to the rule.
The Geophysics principles mentioned above were actually known before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, and were therefore not created for the sake of arguing evolution. Rather Evolution is in fact, largely born of the Geological history and the order of the fauna within. The men who founded modern Geology were in fact Christian, which is why Old Earth Creationism (known today as Progressive Creationism, and is sometimes mixed and matched with Theistic Evolution) predates the theory of Evolution. The geologic column and the law of faunal succession show us that the Earth's fauna have appeared in a certain order, and Evolution simply explains the cause of this reality.
To oversimplify what we find in these successive layers; we find fish before we find amphibians, which we find before we find reptiles, which we find before we find birds. A similar succession of fauna can be applied to the faunal succession leading to humans and whales. Furthermore, we find representations of transitional fossils ("in betweens") in the layers we'd expect them to if certain orders of animals evolved from others.
So for example, we find Archaeopteryx (a bird with reptilian features not found in modern day birds) in the layers of the Jurassic while we don't find modern birds until the upper layers. Conversely, we don't find birds in the strata below Archaeopteryx. It's clear that birds evolved from reptiles. Whether they did so from therapod dinosaurs (as most Paleontologists claim) or from non-dinosaur archosaurs (still a reptile) as a smaller minority claim, the point is still the same; reptiles with bird-like features and birds with reptilian features both appear during the Jurassic period (before modern birds but well after the first reptiles).
Whales are another example of faunal succession. We don't find whales in the same strata as any of the ancient Devonian fish. Rather, we only find them in the strata well above Devonian period. This would not be the case if they "appeared" at the same time as the first fish. Furthermore, there exist a few examples of fossilized transitions between land mammals and whales. Between fossilized mammals such as Pakicetus, Ambulecetus Natans, and Basiliosaurus, who show up in the fossil record well after the first mammals appear but well before modern whales do, it's clear that whales evolved from land mammals with physical characteristics similar to sea lions. The transition in pelvis, blow hole, and legs to flippers are accounted for in this sequence of animals with semi-aquatic features.
Given the succession of fossils we find in the strata, its clear that the first animals were sea dwelling creatures. Land dwelling creatures show up later (higher) in the strata. In between these two we find fossils that are clearly transitional between fish and amphibians. The succession of these creatures all follow the same basic body pattern, which tells us that the Earth's fauna share common ancestry. Furthermore, the fauna found in the upper layers become more and more diverse. At some point the only tetrapods we find are fish-amphibians. But as we move 'higher' in the strata, we find more and more diversity as we begin to find different types of reptiles in greater numbers and diversity, and eventually mammals and birds as well, also in greater numbers and diversity within each off these groups as we move higher in the strata. Furthermore, the fauna we find in the upper layers closer resemble their contemporary counterparts than what we find in the layers below.
These Paleontological discoveries can and are also cross-referenced by Geographic location of fossils, in addition to the homological and vestigial structures in modern day fauna (since the Geological record showcases faunal succession that leads to what we have now).
Both ape and early-to-mid hominid fossils are only found in Africa and Asia which, consequently happens to be the only place where modern day apes exist. Again, there is no reason why this should be the case, unless they evolved more recently than say, monkeys, which do inhabit other parts of the world. Again, primates such as monkeys show up well before later primates.
Speaking of apes and hominids; Paleoanthropology reveals a group of hominids that demonstrate the intermediate steps between ape and humans. From Australopithecus Afarensis and Africanus, Homo Rudolfensis, Habilis, Ergaster, Antecessor, and Archaic Homo Sapien to modern Homo Sapien, we see a gradual increase in brain size; from 410 CC (about the size of a Chimpanzee) to modern homo sapiens (1300 CC). Not only this, but we find that the gradual increase in brain size is accompanied by other features that become less and less ape-like, and more and more human. Brow Ridges, Sagittal Crests, Jaw sizes, and the spine becomes better adapted for bipedalism. Hominid fossils provide such a clear gradient that Creation scientists can't seem to agree which are ape and which are human.
Faunal succession shows us that tails have been common in all tetrapods that lead to apes, who, like us, contain a vestigial tail (coccyx). The fossil record also shows that our ancestors, much like today's great apes, had large powerful molars for which to chew thick vegetation. In humans, this results in wisdom teeth; vestigial teeth whose poor structure cause pain in one third of adults and in some cases, can even cause death. Coincidentally, hominid fossils show a succession towards smaller and smaller jaws which would indeed result in this crammed nature of the human jaw.
In regards to snakes, fossils like Pachyrhachis problematicus make it clear that snakes evolved from legged reptiles. Not only do we find fossilized snakes with small but pronounced legs, we find them in the East, where modern day Pythons exist. Coincidentally some Pythons have leg remnants.
Creationists have indeed raised objections to the fossil record. But they are based on a general misunderstanding of the Geologic Column. A few examples;
The Geologic Column doesn't exist/is mostly missing/only exists in text books, etc.
This stems from a common misunderstanding of what the geologic column is. Some creationists think of it a place, like Mount Rushmore and sarcastically ask "where is it then?" Others believe that a certain level of sediment must exist for the layers for the column to be real and tend to come up with interesting numbers in regards to the miles of sediment that "should" exist for the column to be real. What they appear to do is take the maximum height of sediment found for specific eras in different parts of the world, and create hypothetical "height requirement" for superpositioned layers and sometimes argue that should all exist in the same parts of the world.
This however, is a gross misunderstanding of Geophysics as there is no reason to believe that sedimentation (which creates the layers) nor erosion (which chips away from them), should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.
What makes the column and faunal succession a reality is the fact that we find the same sets of fauna in the same layers throughout the world. The Geologic Column therefore represents a series of sedimentary layers that can be cross-referenced and validated or falsified. 200 years of Geology has only served to solidify the reality of faunal succession.
There are certain theoretical findings that would indeed falsify faunal succession; like finding spear points in a Triceratops (as we do in mammoths). A fossil (or even a living animal) that fell outside of the same pattern of animal would also provide falsification. Whether contemporary or solely in the fossil record, a 6-legged mammal, a bird with wings plus 4 appendages, or a spider with wings would not be explainable within the confines of the evolutionary tree, yet "explicable" by "separate creation." Instead, we find fauna that not only existence in sequence, but do so in a limited pattern. Adaptation explains why the world's fauna would appear in this manner, whereas a conscious creator would have no pattern or timeline to have to adhere to.
Polystrate trees and fossils.
Creationists often assert that fossils or objects such as trees that penetrate a certain amount of sediment and therefore existing in a "polystrate" manner, disprove the Geological consensus that these layers represent different Geological eras. However, the problem with this argument is that it ignores 2 basic geological principles; rapid sedimentation, and cross-cutting.
Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Often times this provides for the best preservation of fossils as it causes for a quick burial that allows the creature to be preserved intact as it avoids being torn to pieces by predators or scavengers, and the carcass is shielded from erosion (assuming is doesn't become unearthed by other occurrences, thereby being exposed to such). Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find "polystrate trees" from time to time.
Then there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through (this is common sense as an object can't cut through sediment that doesn't exist yet). It's a known Geological fact that layers of strata can be penetrated by newer objects. One example of this would be a water logged tree being dragged down into mud, which can take centuries to harden. Creationists often use these instances as 'proof' that the Earth's sediment must be young.
Folds and thrust faults can also cause the layers to overlap and overturn. Again, these are Geological occurrences that have been known and checked for. They are nothing new, but Creationists tend to ignore them and instead look for discrepancies wherever they think they can find them.
The Geological record clearly shows a succession of species that appear from simple to complex, form sparse in diversity to more abundant. It is clear that over time, different creatures 'appeared' to fill more and more specific niches, and the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna. Evolution explains this fact.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Atheists
Atheists
The reason Atheists can't find God is the same reason thiefs can't find police.
I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't believe in Athiests but He still loves them and is more than willing to forgive anyone's sin if they accept Christ's ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
I belong in hell! And I'm a Christian!
I'll be the first one to say it, I have done nothing worthy of God's love. But I've accepted His sacrifice on the cross that replaced my sin with His grace. God hates sin but loves sinners. Just like a mother may love her son but does not love his misbehavior.
I've also come to the conclusion that everyone dies...duh. And everyone will be dead much longer than they've lived. Atheists better be absolutely sure God doesn't exist cause when we all face Him that day we'll be without excuse.
I'm not trying to start another dialogue. I just want to see people in heaven just like God does. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
#1. If I'm wrong about the afterlife then fine, no problem, we'll all return the earth and become trees.
#2. If atheists are wrong then.... We'll all face God and have tell Him why we didn't accept His free gift of salvation.
So to anyone reading this blog site, realize its about much more than what's being done in the classroom. It's about what happens when we die. I want you in heaven, God wants you there too. Accept His grace and forgiveness and build your relationship with Him.
-Joey, co-founder of ELIE
The reason Atheists can't find God is the same reason thiefs can't find police.
I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't believe in Athiests but He still loves them and is more than willing to forgive anyone's sin if they accept Christ's ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
I belong in hell! And I'm a Christian!
I'll be the first one to say it, I have done nothing worthy of God's love. But I've accepted His sacrifice on the cross that replaced my sin with His grace. God hates sin but loves sinners. Just like a mother may love her son but does not love his misbehavior.
I've also come to the conclusion that everyone dies...duh. And everyone will be dead much longer than they've lived. Atheists better be absolutely sure God doesn't exist cause when we all face Him that day we'll be without excuse.
I'm not trying to start another dialogue. I just want to see people in heaven just like God does. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
#1. If I'm wrong about the afterlife then fine, no problem, we'll all return the earth and become trees.
#2. If atheists are wrong then.... We'll all face God and have tell Him why we didn't accept His free gift of salvation.
So to anyone reading this blog site, realize its about much more than what's being done in the classroom. It's about what happens when we die. I want you in heaven, God wants you there too. Accept His grace and forgiveness and build your relationship with Him.
-Joey, co-founder of ELIE
Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs
by Ken Ham
An aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs. Where did they come from? Did they evolve? Did they really live millions of years ago? What happened to them? Are there any living today? Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?
Children and adults alike are absolutely fascinated by these mysterious monsters. Numerous books and movies have been produced to satisfy a seemingly insatiable hunger for information on these puzzling creatures. The truth of the matter, however, is that there are no real mysteries at all, once you have key information that is not generally known and is withheld from the public.
Come with me as we take a walk through history and uncover some amazing facts that will answer many of your questions about these 'terrible lizards.'
Some were as small as chickens, and others were even smaller. Of course, some dinosaurs were very large, weighing in at an estimated 80 tons and standing 40 feet high! The average size of a dinosaur, however, was probably about that of a small horse.
After Adam's sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14-19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
In Genesis 6, we read that all flesh (man and animals) had 'corrupted his way upon the Earth' (Genesis 6:12). Perhaps people and animals were killing each other; maybe dinosaurs had started killing other animals and humans. In any case, the Bible describes the world as 'wicked.'
Because of this wickedness, God warned a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood (Genesis 6:13). God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noah's family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20).
Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind-the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.
God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.
By the way, the Flood of Noah's day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.
Have Dinosaurs Lived in Recent Times?
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called 'behemoth,' is described as 'the chief of the ways of God,' perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
Interestingly, the word 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.
Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records of dragons and their encounters with people. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly for creationists), many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!
However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago.
What Happened to Dinosaurs?
Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs 'ruled' the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this 'mysterious' disappearance.
When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
'Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists' (Alan Charig, p. 150).
At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).
The answer is probably not … but, then again? There are some scientists who believe a few dinosaurs may have survived in remote jungles. We are still discovering new species of animals and plants today in areas that have been too difficult to explore until now. Even natives in some countries describe beasts that fit with what might be a dinosaur.
Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists' ideas, they will always be able to concoct an 'answer' because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!
When we see the bones of dinosaurs, we can be reminded that death was not a part of the original creation. Death is actually an intruder, entering when the first man disobeyed God. The Bible tells us that because we are all descendants of Adam, we too have sinned: 'Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned' (Romans 5:12); 'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' (Romans 3:23). We need to recognize that the wickedness in the world is because of sin, because man rebelled against God.
We can also be reminded that God, who made all things, including the dinosaurs, is also a judge of His creation. He judged Adam's rebellion by cursing the world with death. Adam was warned about what would happen if he disobeyed God's instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die' (Genesis 2:17).
Dinosaurs can also remind us that God judged the rebellion in Noah's day by destroying the wicked world with water, resulting in the death of millions of creatures. The Bible teaches us that He will again judge the world, but next time by fire: 'But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the Earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up' (2 Peter 3:10).
We can also be reminded that after this judgment by fire, God will make a new heaven and Earth: 'Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness' (2 Peter 3:13). And what will it be like in this new Earth? 'And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away' (Revelation 21:4).
But we are also warned that many will not be allowed into this new Earth but will suffer for eternity: 'But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death' (Revelation 21:8).
Humans, who are all sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5), cannot live with a Holy God, but are condemned to separation from God. But, God provided a wonderful means of deliverance from sin. The Bible teaches that God offered the perfect sacrifice needed to pay the penalty for man's sin. God's own Son, the one who in fact created the world (Colossians 1:16), came to Earth as a man, as a descendant of Adam, to suffer the death penalty for sin. 'But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (I Corinthians 15:20-22).
The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross, but on the third day, rose again, conquering death, so that anyone who believes in Him and accepts Him into his or her life, is able to come back to God and live for eternity with the Creator. 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life' (John 3:16); 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (I John 1:9).
For those who do not accept by faith what Christ has done for them and do not recognize their sinful nature and need for redemption, the Bible warns that such people will live forever, but will be separated from God in a place of torment that the Bible calls Hell. But for those who commit their lives to the Lord—what a wonderful message! What a wonderful Savior! What a wonderful salvation in Christ the Creator!
by Ken Ham
An aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs. Where did they come from? Did they evolve? Did they really live millions of years ago? What happened to them? Are there any living today? Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?
Children and adults alike are absolutely fascinated by these mysterious monsters. Numerous books and movies have been produced to satisfy a seemingly insatiable hunger for information on these puzzling creatures. The truth of the matter, however, is that there are no real mysteries at all, once you have key information that is not generally known and is withheld from the public.
Come with me as we take a walk through history and uncover some amazing facts that will answer many of your questions about these 'terrible lizards.'
Did Dinosaurs Really Exist?
Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.
When Were Dinosaurs Found?
The story of their discovery began back in the 1820s, when Gideon Mantell, an English doctor, found some unusual teeth and bones in a quarry. Dr Mantell realized there was something very different about these animal remains, and believed that he had found an entirely new group of reptiles. By 1841, about nine types of these different reptiles had been uncovered, including two called Megalosaurus and Iguanodon.
At this time, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name 'Dinosauria,' meaning 'terrible lizard,' for this is what the huge bones made him think of.
What Makes Dinosaurs Different?
Other than the huge size of some dinosaurs, the major feature that really distinguishes dinosaurs from other reptiles (such as crocodiles) is the
position of their limbs. Dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals. Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position. For instance, compare the way a crocodile 'walks' with that of, say, a cow. Dinosaurs would have moved like a cow, with the limbs supporting the body from beneath. Crocodiles 'waddle,' as their limbs project sideways from their body.
position of their limbs. Dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals. Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position. For instance, compare the way a crocodile 'walks' with that of, say, a cow. Dinosaurs would have moved like a cow, with the limbs supporting the body from beneath. Crocodiles 'waddle,' as their limbs project sideways from their body.How Big Were Dinosaurs?
Some were as small as chickens, and others were even smaller. Of course, some dinosaurs were very large, weighing in at an estimated 80 tons and standing 40 feet high! The average size of a dinosaur, however, was probably about that of a small horse.
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.
The Bible, God's very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.
Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
1 - God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
2 - We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children's children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.
Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?
Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be 'in between,' as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these 'transitional forms,' as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.
The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.
Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this.
What Did Dinosaurs Eat?
The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.
Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1-7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.
After Adam's sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14-19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?
In Genesis 6, we read that all flesh (man and animals) had 'corrupted his way upon the Earth' (Genesis 6:12). Perhaps people and animals were killing each other; maybe dinosaurs had started killing other animals and humans. In any case, the Bible describes the world as 'wicked.'
Because of this wickedness, God warned a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood (Genesis 6:13). God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noah's family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20).
Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind-the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.
God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.
Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.
By the way, the Flood of Noah's day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.
Have Dinosaurs Lived in Recent Times?
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called 'behemoth,' is described as 'the chief of the ways of God,' perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed
description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.
description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in Ancient Literature?
Interestingly, the word 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.
Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records of dragons and their encounters with people. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly for creationists), many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!
However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago.
What Happened to Dinosaurs?
Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs 'ruled' the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this 'mysterious' disappearance.
When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the
composition of air, etc.
It is obvious that evolutionists don't know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, 'A New Look At the Dinosaurs,' the author made the statement:
'Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists' (Alan Charig, p. 150).
But, one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:
At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).
Will We Ever See a Live Dinosaur?
The answer is probably not … but, then again? There are some scientists who believe a few dinosaurs may have survived in remote jungles. We are still discovering new species of animals and plants today in areas that have been too difficult to explore until now. Even natives in some countries describe beasts that fit with what might be a dinosaur.
Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists' ideas, they will always be able to concoct an 'answer' because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!
What Lessons Can We Learn From the Dinosaur?
When we see the bones of dinosaurs, we can be reminded that death was not a part of the original creation. Death is actually an intruder, entering when the first man disobeyed God. The Bible tells us that because we are all descendants of Adam, we too have sinned: 'Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned' (Romans 5:12); 'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' (Romans 3:23). We need to recognize that the wickedness in the world is because of sin, because man rebelled against God.
We can also be reminded that God, who made all things, including the dinosaurs, is also a judge of His creation. He judged Adam's rebellion by cursing the world with death. Adam was warned about what would happen if he disobeyed God's instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die' (Genesis 2:17).
Dinosaurs can also remind us that God judged the rebellion in Noah's day by destroying the wicked world with water, resulting in the death of millions of creatures. The Bible teaches us that He will again judge the world, but next time by fire: 'But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the Earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up' (2 Peter 3:10).
We can also be reminded that after this judgment by fire, God will make a new heaven and Earth: 'Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness' (2 Peter 3:13). And what will it be like in this new Earth? 'And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away' (Revelation 21:4).
But we are also warned that many will not be allowed into this new Earth but will suffer for eternity: 'But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death' (Revelation 21:8).
Humans, who are all sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5), cannot live with a Holy God, but are condemned to separation from God. But, God provided a wonderful means of deliverance from sin. The Bible teaches that God offered the perfect sacrifice needed to pay the penalty for man's sin. God's own Son, the one who in fact created the world (Colossians 1:16), came to Earth as a man, as a descendant of Adam, to suffer the death penalty for sin. 'But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (I Corinthians 15:20-22).
The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross, but on the third day, rose again, conquering death, so that anyone who believes in Him and accepts Him into his or her life, is able to come back to God and live for eternity with the Creator. 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life' (John 3:16); 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (I John 1:9).
For those who do not accept by faith what Christ has done for them and do not recognize their sinful nature and need for redemption, the Bible warns that such people will live forever, but will be separated from God in a place of torment that the Bible calls Hell. But for those who commit their lives to the Lord—what a wonderful message! What a wonderful Savior! What a wonderful salvation in Christ the Creator!
Dr. Jackson answers a question!
Dr J. an email was sent to me by an evo sith. I was wndering what your cmment to this would be. I am what you would call a very very young creation jedi in training. When I read this, I see his point but I do not see where it would relate to a formation of a new species. I was thinking this explination would account for diff. types of a kind of animal but don't knowif this would result in a compete new one. The only example I could think of would be a dusck billed platapus. A beaver/duck. But I do not know of any 2 diff. Species can reproduce a fertile offspring. But I was also presented the example of the exchange of DNA b/t viruses and bacteria. Would this result in a new species since they are diff. to begin w/. What would be your rebutle to this? Please know that i am not looking for a victory in this arguement b/c God warns against foolish quareling. This will solve nothing and my faith is not built on creation evidence but it is only a reinforcement. The message is written below, Thanks Dustin.
Evolution: The cumulative change in the relative frequencies of genetic alleles that occurs over the course of generations.
Evolution is believed to occur through at least four main forces:
(1) Natural selection: A proposed cause of allele frequency change: a collective term for five observations:
(a) Variation: With the exception of clonally reproducing species and identical twins, no two organisms are the same.
(b) Fidelity: some of the variation that exists in the gene pools of populations is heritable; offspring tend to resemble their parents.
(c) Reproduction: Some individuals have more offspring than others. Some organisms die before reaching reproductive age. Some survive but are unable to attract mates, and as a result some organisms have many more than the average number of offspring, while some have fewer.
(d) Adaptation: Some of the heritable characteristics described above have a statistically significant correlation with survival and reproduction. Some organisms will have more offspring because of the differences in their anatomy and/or behavior.
(e) Population: Over the course of generations, those alleles that are statistically, mechanically or in other ways correlated with lower than average fertility will become increasingly less common each generation, while those alleles that are correlated with above average fertility will become more common.
(2) Mutation: During the replication of DNA that takes place during meiosis, a few, not many, but some errors in copying can occur. Those copying errors increase the total numbers of alleles that are present in the gene pool of the population in which they occur.
(3) Drift: Not every organism, even a very well suited organism, is guaranteed to survive and reproduce. In some cases, even particularly well-suited and attractive individuals will have few or no offsprng, so their genes will not be replicated. In some cases, small "founder" populations will settle in a new, previously unoccupied area, but the gene pool of the founder population might not contain a complete representative sample of the gene pool of the parent population. In that case, the generations of offspring born to the founder population will not display the same relative frequencies of alleles that were typical of the ancestral, "parent" population.
(4) Gene flow (migration): In geographically dispersed species, local populations, each of which have their own ratios of alleles, may re-join and reticulate, and in doing so, individuals from one geographically localized population might mate with and reproduce with individuals who live in another geographically localized area and who have descended from founders who had a distinct ratio of alleles. The relative frequencies of the various alleles in the gene pool of the offspring generation of the "migrant recipient" region will differ from both the gene pools of the pre-migration local population that received the immigrants and the pre-migration gene pool that was the source of the immigrants.That, all of that, only that, and nothing more than, less than or other than that is what we mean by "evolution."
If you "don't believe in" evolution, please point to the specific claim or claims above that you consider inaccurate.
Please do not talk about the "big bang" or "stellar formation" or in fact anything other than what is written above.
What is written here IS what "evolution" means, and it is the sum total of what evolution means. So if you don't "believe in" evolution, you must disagree with one or more of those points.
If you do not dispute any of those points, then your disagreement, whatever it is, is not with evolution
_______________________________________________
Dear brother Dustin,
The evo is using a debate tactic called "hurling elephants." The defense against it is ... not to let it impress / distract you. OK.
Everything you said in your post to me, about what the evo said ... is right. You are dead-on right! Here's how you can know.
Look at each of the "proofs" the evo gives.
Every single one of these things is -- actually true.
But every single one of them ... can happen in nature ... without evolution ever happening.
If it can happen without evolution being true ... then you cannot use it as "proof" of evolution.
Right?
The only thing he said that was not true (and that's always the trick ... finding the lie ... the piece of dog poop inside the candy bar) ... was the following excerpt:
2) Mutation: During the replication of DNA that takes place during meiosis, a few, not many, but some errors in copying can occur. Those copying errors increase the total numbers of alleles that are present in the gene pool of the population in which they occur.
It only "increases the total number of alleles" by making new alleles that are mutated -- and don't work! You are right in saying that you cannot see how all his many mechanisms actually can make a new species. In all that he said, he never gave the answer to that.
In effect, he was doing things like ... giving you a very long explanation of why the sky is blue, trying to make himself look smarter and smarter all along, then stating that you have no hope of refuting what he says ... but ... every single thing he said ... hasn't got a thing to do ... with making new genes with new information and new functions ... that actually work.
The above quote in red, from his post ... is the closest thing to actually supporting evolution that he did the whole time. The rest was as irrelevant to evo, as the details of why the sky is blue. None of his stuff explains how new genes with new information and new functions that work ... can come into being and ... add up to make new species.
Of course you feel silly trying to refute his great claims -- they are all right (except for point #2). Unfortunately for him ... none of his claims ... are claims that support evolution ... not even in the slightest. Even his #2 only ... infers ... that evolution is happening.
Ask him how more genetic information is gotten ... by all that he describes
How can any process he described ... get you from fish ... to college students?
None can. Look at them one at a time.
He seems to think that magically ... even though each one doesn't do it ... somehow, taken all together ... they can! That's like saying that a if you use all broken parts from old cars, you can make a new car that not only works, but is better than all the old cars!
You see, everything he said ... was all about "broken parts." He gave no mechanism for making "new and better parts." It all sounded good ... but it never proved his point.
He should go into politics. He says so much -- without answering the question.
-Dr J http://www.crossspot.net/origins/
Ask Dr. J a question: drjxn2004@yahoo.com
Check out his bio here.
You can also subscribe to email bulletins by sending a blank email to Points_of_Origins_75-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Evolution: The cumulative change in the relative frequencies of genetic alleles that occurs over the course of generations.
Evolution is believed to occur through at least four main forces:
(1) Natural selection: A proposed cause of allele frequency change: a collective term for five observations:
(a) Variation: With the exception of clonally reproducing species and identical twins, no two organisms are the same.
(b) Fidelity: some of the variation that exists in the gene pools of populations is heritable; offspring tend to resemble their parents.
(c) Reproduction: Some individuals have more offspring than others. Some organisms die before reaching reproductive age. Some survive but are unable to attract mates, and as a result some organisms have many more than the average number of offspring, while some have fewer.
(d) Adaptation: Some of the heritable characteristics described above have a statistically significant correlation with survival and reproduction. Some organisms will have more offspring because of the differences in their anatomy and/or behavior.
(e) Population: Over the course of generations, those alleles that are statistically, mechanically or in other ways correlated with lower than average fertility will become increasingly less common each generation, while those alleles that are correlated with above average fertility will become more common.
(2) Mutation: During the replication of DNA that takes place during meiosis, a few, not many, but some errors in copying can occur. Those copying errors increase the total numbers of alleles that are present in the gene pool of the population in which they occur.
(3) Drift: Not every organism, even a very well suited organism, is guaranteed to survive and reproduce. In some cases, even particularly well-suited and attractive individuals will have few or no offsprng, so their genes will not be replicated. In some cases, small "founder" populations will settle in a new, previously unoccupied area, but the gene pool of the founder population might not contain a complete representative sample of the gene pool of the parent population. In that case, the generations of offspring born to the founder population will not display the same relative frequencies of alleles that were typical of the ancestral, "parent" population.
(4) Gene flow (migration): In geographically dispersed species, local populations, each of which have their own ratios of alleles, may re-join and reticulate, and in doing so, individuals from one geographically localized population might mate with and reproduce with individuals who live in another geographically localized area and who have descended from founders who had a distinct ratio of alleles. The relative frequencies of the various alleles in the gene pool of the offspring generation of the "migrant recipient" region will differ from both the gene pools of the pre-migration local population that received the immigrants and the pre-migration gene pool that was the source of the immigrants.That, all of that, only that, and nothing more than, less than or other than that is what we mean by "evolution."
If you "don't believe in" evolution, please point to the specific claim or claims above that you consider inaccurate.
Please do not talk about the "big bang" or "stellar formation" or in fact anything other than what is written above.
What is written here IS what "evolution" means, and it is the sum total of what evolution means. So if you don't "believe in" evolution, you must disagree with one or more of those points.
If you do not dispute any of those points, then your disagreement, whatever it is, is not with evolution
_______________________________________________
Dear brother Dustin,
The evo is using a debate tactic called "hurling elephants." The defense against it is ... not to let it impress / distract you. OK.
Everything you said in your post to me, about what the evo said ... is right. You are dead-on right! Here's how you can know.
Look at each of the "proofs" the evo gives.
Every single one of these things is -- actually true.
But every single one of them ... can happen in nature ... without evolution ever happening.
If it can happen without evolution being true ... then you cannot use it as "proof" of evolution.
Right?
The only thing he said that was not true (and that's always the trick ... finding the lie ... the piece of dog poop inside the candy bar) ... was the following excerpt:
2) Mutation: During the replication of DNA that takes place during meiosis, a few, not many, but some errors in copying can occur. Those copying errors increase the total numbers of alleles that are present in the gene pool of the population in which they occur.
It only "increases the total number of alleles" by making new alleles that are mutated -- and don't work! You are right in saying that you cannot see how all his many mechanisms actually can make a new species. In all that he said, he never gave the answer to that.
In effect, he was doing things like ... giving you a very long explanation of why the sky is blue, trying to make himself look smarter and smarter all along, then stating that you have no hope of refuting what he says ... but ... every single thing he said ... hasn't got a thing to do ... with making new genes with new information and new functions ... that actually work.
The above quote in red, from his post ... is the closest thing to actually supporting evolution that he did the whole time. The rest was as irrelevant to evo, as the details of why the sky is blue. None of his stuff explains how new genes with new information and new functions that work ... can come into being and ... add up to make new species.
Of course you feel silly trying to refute his great claims -- they are all right (except for point #2). Unfortunately for him ... none of his claims ... are claims that support evolution ... not even in the slightest. Even his #2 only ... infers ... that evolution is happening.
Ask him how more genetic information is gotten ... by all that he describes
How can any process he described ... get you from fish ... to college students?
None can. Look at them one at a time.
He seems to think that magically ... even though each one doesn't do it ... somehow, taken all together ... they can! That's like saying that a if you use all broken parts from old cars, you can make a new car that not only works, but is better than all the old cars!
You see, everything he said ... was all about "broken parts." He gave no mechanism for making "new and better parts." It all sounded good ... but it never proved his point.
He should go into politics. He says so much -- without answering the question.
-Dr J http://www.crossspot.net/origins/
Ask Dr. J a question: drjxn2004@yahoo.com
Check out his bio here.
You can also subscribe to email bulletins by sending a blank email to Points_of_Origins_75-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
"Dragon" Descriptions
'Dinosaurs', in the form of flying reptiles, were a feature of Welsh life until surprisingly recent times. As late as the beginning of the present century, elderly folk at Penllin in Glamorgan used to tell of a colony of winged serpents that lived in the woods around Penllin Castle. As Marie Trevelyan tells us:
'The woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Penllyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful. They were coiled when in repose, and "looked as if they were covered with jewels of all sorts. Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow". When disturbed they glided swiftly, "sparkling all over," to their hiding places. When angry, they "flew over people's heads, with outspread wings, bright, and sometimes with eyes too, like the feathers in a peacock's tail". He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and coverts".)
The giant reptile at Bures in Suffolk, for example, is known to us from a chronicle of 1405:
'Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.'
After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide,
'...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen.'
Later in the 15th century, according to a contemporary chronicle that still survives in Canterbury Cathedral's library, the following incident was reported. On the afternoon of Friday, 26th September, 1449, two giant reptiles were seen fighting on the banks of the River Stour (near the village of Little Cornard) which marked the English county borders of Suffolk and Essex. One was black, and the other 'reddish and spotted'. After an hour-long struggle that took place 'to the admiration of many [of the locals] beholding them', the black monster yielded and returned to its lair, the scene of the conflict being known ever since as Sharpfight Meadow. (9)
As late as August, 1614, the following sober account was given of a strange reptile that was encountered in St Leonard's Forest in Sussex. The sighting was near a village that was known as Dragon's Green long before this report was published:
'This serpent (or dragon as some call it) is reputed to be nine feete, or rather more, in length, and shaped almost in the form of an axletree of a cart: a quantitie of thickness in the middest, and somewhat smaller at both endes. The former part, which he shootes forth as a necke, is supposed to be an elle [3 ft 9 ins or 1 l4 cms] long; with a white ring, as it were, of scales about it. The scales along his back seem to be blackish, and so much as is discovered under his belie, appeareth to be red... it is likewise discovered to have large feete, but the eye may there be deceived, for some suppose that serpents have no feete ... [The dragon] rids away (as we call it) as fast as a man can run. His food [rabbits] is thought to be; for the most part, in a conie-warren, which he much frequents ...There are likewise upon either side of him discovered two great bunches so big as a large foote-ball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings, but God, I hope, will (to defend the poor people in the neighbourhood) that he shall be destroyed before he grows to fledge.'
This dragon was seen in various places within a circuit of three or four miles, and the pamphlet named some of the still-living witnesses who had seen him. These included John Steele, Christopher Holder and a certain 'widow woman dwelling neare Faygate'. Another witness was 'the carrier of Horsham, who lieth at the White Horse [inn] in Southwark'. One of the locals set his two mastiffs onto the monster, and apart from losing his dogs he was fortunate to escape alive from the encounter, for the dragon was already credited with the deaths of a man and woman at whom it had spat and who consequently had been killed by its venom. When approached unwittingly, our pamphleteer tells us, the monster was...
'...of countenance very proud and at the sight or hearing of men or cattel will raise
his neck upright and seem to listen and looke about, with great arrogancy.'
an eyewitness account of typically reptilian behaviour.
As recently as the 18th century, in a lake called Llyn-y-Gader in Snowdon, Wales, a certain man went swimming. He reached the middle of the lake and was returning to the shore when his friends who were watching him noticed that he was being followed by:
'...a long, trailing object winding slowly behind him. They were afraid to raise an alarm, but went forward to meet him as soon as he reached the shore where they stood. Just as he was approaching, the trailing object raised its head, and before anyone could render aid the man was enveloped in the coils of the monster...'
It seems that the man's body was never recovered.
At about the turn of this present century, the following incident took place. It was related by a Lady Gregory of Ireland in 1920:
'...old people told me that they were swimming there, [in an Irish lake called Lough Graney] and a man had gone out into the middle, and they saw something like a great big eel making for him...'
Happily, on this occasion the man made it back to the shore, but the important thing for us to notice is that these are only a few of a great many reports concerning the sightings in recent times of lake-dwelling monsters which, if only their fossils had been found, would have been called dinosaurs.
But the British Isles are not the only place where one can find such reports. They occur, quite literally, all over the world. (14) William Caxton, for example, England's first printer, recorded for us in 1484 the following account of a reptilian monster in medieval Italy. I have modernised the spelling and punctuation:
' There was found within a great river [i.e. the Po in Italy] a monster marine, or of the sea, of the form or likeness which followeth. He had the form or making of a fish, the which part was in two halves, that is to wit double. He had a great beard and he had two wonderfully great horns above his ears. Also he had great paps and a wonderfully great and horrible mouth. And at the both [of] his elbows he had wings right broad and great of fish's armour wherewith he swimmed and only he had but the head out of the water. It happed then that many women laundered and washed at the port or haven of the said river [where] that this horrible and fearful beast was, [who] for lack or default of meat came swimming toward the said women. Of the which he took one by the hand and supposed to have drawn her into the water. But she was strong and well advised and resisted against the said monster. And as she defended herself, she began to cry with an high voice, "Help, help!" To the which came running five women which by hurling and drawing of stones, killed and slew the said monster, for he was come too far within the sound, wherefore he might not return to the deep water. And after, when he rendered his spirit, he made a right little cry. He was of great corpulence more than any man's body. And yet, saith Poge [Pogius Bracciolini of Florence] in this manner, that he, being at Ferrara, he saw the said monster and saith yet that the young children were accustomed for to go bathe and wash them within the said river, but they came not all again. Wherefore the women [neither] washed nor laundered their clothes at the said port, for the folk presumed and supposed that the monster killed the young children which were drowned.'
Caxton also provided the following account of a 'serpent' which left a cow badly bruised and frightened, although we should bear in mind that a serpent in Caxton's day was not the snake that we would imagine today, for the word serpent has changed its meaning slightly since the Middle Ages. There are one or two intriguing woodcut illustrations of these serpents in Caxton's book, and they are all bipedal, scaled reptiles with large mouths:
'...about the marches of Italy, within a meadow, was sometime a serpent of wonderful and right marvellous greatness, right hideous and fearful. For first he had the head greater than the head of a calf. Secondly, he had a neck of the length of an ass, and his body made after the likeness of a dog. And his tail was wonderfully great, thick and long, without comparison to any other. A cow ... [seeing] ...so right horrible a beast, she was all fearful and lift herself up and supposed to have fled away. But the serpent, with his wonderfully long tail, enlaced her two hind legs. And the serpent then began to suck the cow. And indeed so much and so long he sucked that he found some milk. And when the cow might escape from him, she fled unto the other cows. And her paps and her hind legs, and all that the serpent touched, was all black a great space of time.'
The following, for example, was penned only two hundred years ago in 1793 and describes creatures that sound suspiciously like pterodactyls or similar. Remember, it is an official and very sober government report that we are reading:
'In the end of November and beginning of December last, many of the country people observed dragons appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east; from which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that...boisterous weather would follow.'
Likewise, the Voluspa tells us of a certain monster which the early Vikings called a Nithhoggr, its name (corpse-tearer) revealing the fact that it lived off carrion. Saxo Grammaticus, in his Gesta Danorum, tells us of the Danish king Frotho's fight with a giant reptile, and it is in the advice given by a local to the king, and recorded by Saxo, that the monster is described in great detail. It was, he says, a serpent:
'...wreathed in coils, doubled in many a fold, and with a tail drawn out in winding whorls, shaking his manifold spirals and shedding venom ... his slaver [saliva] burns up what it bespattersyet [he tells the king in words that were doubtless meant to encourage rather than dismay] ...remember to keep the dauntless temper of thy mind; nor let the point of the jagged tooth trouble thee, nor the starkness of the beast, nor the venom there is a place under his lowest belly whither thou mayst plunge the blade'
This beach monster washed up on california's shore in 1925. Read full story here:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115
All throughout the ancient world's literature and art, dragons are described and depicted. What were these "mythical" creatures anyway? Could they have been dinosaurs with a different name? You decide as i list the actual descriptions of these creatures.
____________________________________________
The full chapter on dragons can be found in Bill Cooper's online book. He sites the sources and gives more information on these "dragons." http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch10.html
Pictures in ancient art depict dinosaurs as well. http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
Pictures in ancient art depict dinosaurs as well. http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
This stegosaur is drawn on a temple in Angor Watt, Cambodia.
______________________________________________
'Dinosaurs', in the form of flying reptiles, were a feature of Welsh life until surprisingly recent times. As late as the beginning of the present century, elderly folk at Penllin in Glamorgan used to tell of a colony of winged serpents that lived in the woods around Penllin Castle. As Marie Trevelyan tells us:
'The woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Penllyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful. They were coiled when in repose, and "looked as if they were covered with jewels of all sorts. Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow". When disturbed they glided swiftly, "sparkling all over," to their hiding places. When angry, they "flew over people's heads, with outspread wings, bright, and sometimes with eyes too, like the feathers in a peacock's tail". He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and coverts".)
The giant reptile at Bures in Suffolk, for example, is known to us from a chronicle of 1405:
'Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.'
'...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen.'
Later in the 15th century, according to a contemporary chronicle that still survives in Canterbury Cathedral's library, the following incident was reported. On the afternoon of Friday, 26th September, 1449, two giant reptiles were seen fighting on the banks of the River Stour (near the village of Little Cornard) which marked the English county borders of Suffolk and Essex. One was black, and the other 'reddish and spotted'. After an hour-long struggle that took place 'to the admiration of many [of the locals] beholding them', the black monster yielded and returned to its lair, the scene of the conflict being known ever since as Sharpfight Meadow. (9)
As late as August, 1614, the following sober account was given of a strange reptile that was encountered in St Leonard's Forest in Sussex. The sighting was near a village that was known as Dragon's Green long before this report was published:
'This serpent (or dragon as some call it) is reputed to be nine feete, or rather more, in length, and shaped almost in the form of an axletree of a cart: a quantitie of thickness in the middest, and somewhat smaller at both endes. The former part, which he shootes forth as a necke, is supposed to be an elle [3 ft 9 ins or 1 l4 cms] long; with a white ring, as it were, of scales about it. The scales along his back seem to be blackish, and so much as is discovered under his belie, appeareth to be red... it is likewise discovered to have large feete, but the eye may there be deceived, for some suppose that serpents have no feete ... [The dragon] rids away (as we call it) as fast as a man can run. His food [rabbits] is thought to be; for the most part, in a conie-warren, which he much frequents ...There are likewise upon either side of him discovered two great bunches so big as a large foote-ball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings, but God, I hope, will (to defend the poor people in the neighbourhood) that he shall be destroyed before he grows to fledge.'
This dragon was seen in various places within a circuit of three or four miles, and the pamphlet named some of the still-living witnesses who had seen him. These included John Steele, Christopher Holder and a certain 'widow woman dwelling neare Faygate'. Another witness was 'the carrier of Horsham, who lieth at the White Horse [inn] in Southwark'. One of the locals set his two mastiffs onto the monster, and apart from losing his dogs he was fortunate to escape alive from the encounter, for the dragon was already credited with the deaths of a man and woman at whom it had spat and who consequently had been killed by its venom. When approached unwittingly, our pamphleteer tells us, the monster was...
'...of countenance very proud and at the sight or hearing of men or cattel will raise
his neck upright and seem to listen and looke about, with great arrogancy.'
an eyewitness account of typically reptilian behaviour.
As recently as the 18th century, in a lake called Llyn-y-Gader in Snowdon, Wales, a certain man went swimming. He reached the middle of the lake and was returning to the shore when his friends who were watching him noticed that he was being followed by:
'...a long, trailing object winding slowly behind him. They were afraid to raise an alarm, but went forward to meet him as soon as he reached the shore where they stood. Just as he was approaching, the trailing object raised its head, and before anyone could render aid the man was enveloped in the coils of the monster...'
It seems that the man's body was never recovered.
At about the turn of this present century, the following incident took place. It was related by a Lady Gregory of Ireland in 1920:
'...old people told me that they were swimming there, [in an Irish lake called Lough Graney] and a man had gone out into the middle, and they saw something like a great big eel making for him...'
Happily, on this occasion the man made it back to the shore, but the important thing for us to notice is that these are only a few of a great many reports concerning the sightings in recent times of lake-dwelling monsters which, if only their fossils had been found, would have been called dinosaurs.
But the British Isles are not the only place where one can find such reports. They occur, quite literally, all over the world. (14) William Caxton, for example, England's first printer, recorded for us in 1484 the following account of a reptilian monster in medieval Italy. I have modernised the spelling and punctuation:
' There was found within a great river [i.e. the Po in Italy] a monster marine, or of the sea, of the form or likeness which followeth. He had the form or making of a fish, the which part was in two halves, that is to wit double. He had a great beard and he had two wonderfully great horns above his ears. Also he had great paps and a wonderfully great and horrible mouth. And at the both [of] his elbows he had wings right broad and great of fish's armour wherewith he swimmed and only he had but the head out of the water. It happed then that many women laundered and washed at the port or haven of the said river [where] that this horrible and fearful beast was, [who] for lack or default of meat came swimming toward the said women. Of the which he took one by the hand and supposed to have drawn her into the water. But she was strong and well advised and resisted against the said monster. And as she defended herself, she began to cry with an high voice, "Help, help!" To the which came running five women which by hurling and drawing of stones, killed and slew the said monster, for he was come too far within the sound, wherefore he might not return to the deep water. And after, when he rendered his spirit, he made a right little cry. He was of great corpulence more than any man's body. And yet, saith Poge [Pogius Bracciolini of Florence] in this manner, that he, being at Ferrara, he saw the said monster and saith yet that the young children were accustomed for to go bathe and wash them within the said river, but they came not all again. Wherefore the women [neither] washed nor laundered their clothes at the said port, for the folk presumed and supposed that the monster killed the young children which were drowned.'
Caxton also provided the following account of a 'serpent' which left a cow badly bruised and frightened, although we should bear in mind that a serpent in Caxton's day was not the snake that we would imagine today, for the word serpent has changed its meaning slightly since the Middle Ages. There are one or two intriguing woodcut illustrations of these serpents in Caxton's book, and they are all bipedal, scaled reptiles with large mouths:
'...about the marches of Italy, within a meadow, was sometime a serpent of wonderful and right marvellous greatness, right hideous and fearful. For first he had the head greater than the head of a calf. Secondly, he had a neck of the length of an ass, and his body made after the likeness of a dog. And his tail was wonderfully great, thick and long, without comparison to any other. A cow ... [seeing] ...so right horrible a beast, she was all fearful and lift herself up and supposed to have fled away. But the serpent, with his wonderfully long tail, enlaced her two hind legs. And the serpent then began to suck the cow. And indeed so much and so long he sucked that he found some milk. And when the cow might escape from him, she fled unto the other cows. And her paps and her hind legs, and all that the serpent touched, was all black a great space of time.'
The following, for example, was penned only two hundred years ago in 1793 and describes creatures that sound suspiciously like pterodactyls or similar. Remember, it is an official and very sober government report that we are reading:
'In the end of November and beginning of December last, many of the country people observed dragons appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east; from which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that...boisterous weather would follow.'
Likewise, the Voluspa tells us of a certain monster which the early Vikings called a Nithhoggr, its name (corpse-tearer) revealing the fact that it lived off carrion. Saxo Grammaticus, in his Gesta Danorum, tells us of the Danish king Frotho's fight with a giant reptile, and it is in the advice given by a local to the king, and recorded by Saxo, that the monster is described in great detail. It was, he says, a serpent:
'...wreathed in coils, doubled in many a fold, and with a tail drawn out in winding whorls, shaking his manifold spirals and shedding venom ... his slaver [saliva] burns up what it bespattersyet [he tells the king in words that were doubtless meant to encourage rather than dismay] ...remember to keep the dauntless temper of thy mind; nor let the point of the jagged tooth trouble thee, nor the starkness of the beast, nor the venom there is a place under his lowest belly whither thou mayst plunge the blade'
This beach monster washed up on california's shore in 1925. Read full story here:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)