Skip to comments.Fossil turtles confound evolutionists (Creation vs. Evolution)
Posted on 04/18/2005 9:37:46 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
April 18, 2005
Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.1 However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!
The fossils are ;believed; to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look ;basically the same as sea turtles do today.;1
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is ;dated; at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since ;remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,; Discovery reports.
How do the evolutionists explain this? The Australian researchers are quoted as saying that the ;sea turtles have hit on the winning design … [and] cracked the winning code.; Notice how the evolutionists describe the turtles—as if they are highly intelligent, creative, forward-looking engineers, which they are not, of course. Evolution is supposedly based on natural selection and mutations, which are mindless, directionless, blind natural processes.
Not only are these turtle fossils contrary to the theory of perpetual and gradual evolutionary change, they also simultaneously refute the notion of millions of years. It is simply unbelievable that these turtles could remain unchanged for over 100 million years, given that information-degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things, generation after generation (a consequence of the Curse of Genesis 3).
But these are not the only living fossils that refute evolution and millions of years. Many examples could be cited. Regarding salamander fossils recently found in China, we learn that ;Despite its Bathonian age, the new cryptobranchid [salamander] shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives. This similarity underscores the stasis [no change] within salamander anatomical evolution. Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160 million years.;2
Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old, that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.3 Microscopic algae didn’t change over 3.5 billion years of evolution? Who’s kidding whom?
All this evidence fits perfectly with the Bible’s teaching that these algae, along with the rest of the creation, are only at most about 6,000 years old.
Once again we see evolutionists digging up the evidence that, when removed from the restriction of having to be forced into an evolutionary framework, actually refutes their theories and confirms the truth of the Bible. Thanks, Australian evolutionists—and keep up the good work!
It seems to me that the evolutionists are the ones tossing Frisbees in the air to get a picture of their latest UFO. Evolutionists have, for a very long time, used needle and thread, glue, doctored drawings, dental drills, and outright lies to manufacture evidence. It must be quite a cottage industry doctoring fossils.
That would be "hence"
I never saw a conflict between evolution and my religion, as I understand each of them.
Evolution describes a method, a process. Religion tells us WHO created the world, but not necessarily the details of the method or process used.
Nope, can't do it.
We have always been at war with EastAsia...
Here's some actual information.
And yes. There's still a lot that's unknown.
Why do you insist on calling those who disagree with you names? Isn't that what liberals usually do? Why can't you just argue your facts (since you obviously know more than anyone else)?
Not pointless, but less important. All truth is God's truth.
Must be nice to have all the answers, especially being able to unequivocally understand both Ezekiel AND Revelation! You should write your own book!
That has always amazed me. Consider that there must have been a billion people on earth at the time of Jesus, many of them in South America, North America, Africa and Asia, but somehow, someone must have known in advance exactly which lineage to keep track of, because they didn't keep track of everyone.
What is wrong with God's incorporating the principles of evolution into the creation of the universe?
Check out what babble-on is saying in #26.. ( sarcasm aside )
" that both sides would see that what they perceive as a conflict of ideology is really just two ways of describing one phenomenon, namely the glorious beauty of the universe." __________________________________________________________
This is much like what I believe is going on here..
God created the universe:
The physics of it's creation, the physical laws that caused it to grow and form, the physical laws that determined mass, gravity, the limitations of the speed of light, and the elements present in the universe necessary for the creation of life..
It was not an "afterthought", it was planned right from the very beginning.. just like the rest of the universe..
The Stars and the planets in their orbits, the fact that our planet had to fall within a specific orbital range to foster life, etc..
All of it was planned..
God had no need to come "back" to earth after the planet had formed, atmosphere and seas had coelesced, plant and animal life had appeared.. and then create man..
Man was created in the beginning..
The same instant as the Big Bang..
Humanity was already in existance, with the very first quantum particle.. The first Stardust, the first meteors that showered the planet..
We were always here from the very start..
Now, listen to those that proclaim the majesty of God try to limit his power to fit within the limited scope of their own imaginations..
"No, God had to do it the way I understand it, comprehend it.. I cannot grasp the complexities of math and science, so I deny it, and God's part in it.."
God is beyond the comprehension of mortal man..
If God wishes to create Life and Human kind through evolutionary processes, who are we to deny his right?
What perfection are you talking about?
Sure. These turtles have filled a certain niche succesfully. As a result, there is little environmental pressure for them to evolve into a different direction.
Sharks also haven't changed all that much in millions of years because they are very good at what they do.
Individual members of the species might get eaten by predators, but that doesn't mean the species as a whole isn't successful.
Why didn't the dinosaurs survive?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.