Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are there out-of-sequence fossils that are problematic for evolution?
Creation Ministries International ^ | 4-17-2014 | by Gary Bates and Lita Cosner

Posted on 04/17/2014 9:15:11 AM PDT by fishtank

Are there out-of-sequence fossils that are problematic for evolution?

by Gary Bates and Lita Cosner

Published: 17 April 2014 (GMT+10)

In his debate with Ken Ham, (the ‘science guy’) Bill Nye dogmatically claimed, and asked Ham, to cite any out of order fossils in the geologic record, because if there were any, it would be problematic for the evolutionary model. Due to the seeming confidence of Nye’s assertion (and that it was not answered during the debate), many have contacted us for an answer on this single question. In addition, while out on ministry our speakers have mentioned how this question has often come up. At a recent event, Gary Bates encountered a Christian university student who said this question was being used as a club by lecturers and professors to ‘beat him with’. It appears that this seeming ‘knockout punch’ argument by Nye is being used as a ‘great’ falsification of the creation model.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; billnye; creation; fauxiantrolls; fossils; kenham; notanewstopic; nye
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
From the article:

"“To the surprise of many, ducks,3 squirrels,4 platypus,5 beaver-like6 and badger-like7 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!”"

1 posted on 04/17/2014 9:15:11 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

CMI image caption: "Fossil octopus remarkably preserved in Lebanon reveals details of the eight arms, suckers, ink, gills, mouth, eye capsule and more."

From the article: "So a better way to counter this would be to ask whether evolution has made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed by subsequent discoveries. And by this measure evolution falls dramatically short.

For instance, Charles Darwin said that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.”

He was simply wrong, because we have many examples of this. "

2 posted on 04/17/2014 9:16:57 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Quote a from a real scientific publication’s real article not built on a straw man and we’ll talk.


3 posted on 04/17/2014 9:19:25 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Evolution doesn’t make a prediction about whether soft organisms can be preserved or not, so the fact that Darwin’s personal opinion on this matter was mistaken can’t be used to refute evolution, generally.


4 posted on 04/17/2014 9:20:30 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

>>Evolution doesn’t make a prediction about whether soft organisms can be preserved or not, so the fact that Darwin’s personal opinion on this matter was mistaken can’t be used to refute evolution, generally.
<<

Don’t use facts and logic. It just irritates them.


5 posted on 04/17/2014 9:22:10 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Quote a from a real scientific publication’s real article not built on a straw man and we’ll talk.


So, based on that remark I’m gonna guess you buy into AGW.


6 posted on 04/17/2014 9:22:14 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Agree.

I am most definitely a Christian...but sorry, folks the earth is not 4K years old, and evolution is pretty much how methinks God did things.

If we want to go down the 4K years old thing, why then is not the earth only one nanosecond old...and we’ve had all our memories preinstalled.

One can easily believe in evolution and also believe that God perhaps used the normal randomness allowed in quantum physics to introduce changes in species vectors without violating any of the laws of physics that are so tightly tuned for our existance.


7 posted on 04/17/2014 9:24:21 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Quote a from a real scientific publication’s real article not built on a straw man and we’ll talk.

So, based on that remark I’m gonna guess you buy into AGW.

Sorry, but he said “real scientific publications”.

Those that are pushing AGW are most definitely not even close to scientific...for N reasons...where N is a very very large number. Always remember, if you’ve got Cs and Ds in your physics courses, you can always get a government grant and go into something that’s your level....climate research.


8 posted on 04/17/2014 9:26:57 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
The sequence is not that big a deal. Classical Darwinism requires that the vast bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate forms and there simply aren't any. The more recent version of evoloserism, the Gould/Eldredge/Myer "Punctuated Equilibria" amounts to an attempt to get by both the problem of missing intermediate fossils and the gigantic problem of the Haldane dilemma, but has its own set of problems which is just as bad.

The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionites is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastafari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God hates IDIOTS, too!

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

Splifford the bat says: Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

9 posted on 04/17/2014 9:32:18 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

I hope you realize that the earth IS flat AND the sun and the rest of the entire universe revolves around the earth. It’s been that way for all the 4000 years that the earth has been around. Oh and all those civilizations that existed LOOONG before that ... the devil made the evidence of those and they are not real. Now pass me an other joint and don’t try to confuse my faith driven predetermined opinions with facts.


10 posted on 04/17/2014 9:32:53 AM PDT by clamper1797 (Evil WILL flourish when good men WILL not act)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
am most definitely a Christian...but sorry, folks the earth is not 4K years old, and evolution is pretty much how methinks God did things.

Sorry, incompatible. Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

They are mutually exclusive. Evolution dictates non-directed mutations. Creation dictates directed distinctions.

Either you believe God or you believe man.

11 posted on 04/17/2014 9:35:24 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

While “bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees” would all be expected in “dinosaur era” fossils, the others will need citations as I suspect some misrepresentation. There are mammal “like” reptiles going way back and mammals walked the earth with dinosaurs just as birds are the living relatives of dinosaurs. Fossils of kinds not anticipated by Darwin prove nothing. Darwin was a fallible individual, apparently unlike your flood geologists.


12 posted on 04/17/2014 9:38:41 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Sorry, I think you're going overboard in some of your reasoning. Maybe there was some intelligent design at some time, maybe not, but there's clearly been many eons on earth with some likely evolutionary changes confirmed by various dating techniques.

Your bullet points don't all seem convincing. For example, #9 is:

4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

I submit that this happens all the time. Look at our inner cities.

13 posted on 04/17/2014 9:42:58 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; fishtank
Quote a from a real scientific publication’s real article not built on a straw man and we’ll talk.

You mean that you'll be willing to discuss it when the evolutionists admit it?
14 posted on 04/17/2014 9:43:57 AM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
One can easily believe in evolution and also believe that God perhaps used the normal randomness allowed in quantum physics to introduce changes in species vectors without violating any of the laws of physics that are so tightly tuned for our existance.

Certainly, but as long as true observational science lacks evidence for this theory, I prefer to believe what God said He did.
15 posted on 04/17/2014 9:46:47 AM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Or you believe various different MAN’s account of GOD.


16 posted on 04/17/2014 9:48:57 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

I agree, Christianity can consider science true, there is no need to turn science into an “ism” against all Christians.


17 posted on 04/17/2014 9:49:57 AM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st

You’re asserting that the Bible is a work of Man, then.


18 posted on 04/17/2014 9:52:11 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Really? Any proof of that or is it just another opinion like evolution.


19 posted on 04/17/2014 9:55:07 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I have heard the question but never a good answer put to evolutionists where;

If we only use 5-10% of our brain

and if the demands made on an organizism by its environment is what causes organisms to evolve

how did we ever need or use 100% of or brain at sometime in the past?


20 posted on 04/17/2014 9:58:27 AM PDT by jcon40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st
Or you believe various different MAN’s account of GOD.

There is one account. Christ's.

21 posted on 04/17/2014 9:59:00 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Quote a from a real scientific publication’s real article not built on a straw man and we’ll talk."

Yeppers, liberal global warmists ask for the same conard.

22 posted on 04/17/2014 9:59:52 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
"...generally?"
23 posted on 04/17/2014 10:01:06 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

... I am a Christian. I tick off everybody as an old earth creationist. :-). I believe in micro evolution and some species tweaking but nothing beyond that. God could have used evolution if He wished but see no evidence that He did so.


24 posted on 04/17/2014 10:02:40 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I am asserting using the Bible for proof will not work to explain observable facts to someone who does not accept a literal interpertation of the Bible.

I am not asserting that I do or do not accept the Bible is the Word Of God. I am only trying to demonstrate that it is part of a Belief system.

It is an extreme Act of Faith to accept the Bible as the direct and infallable Word Of God, totally free of “typos”.

Just as it is an extreme Act of Faith to accept Global Warming or Evolution as proposed by Darwin, or Gould, etc.

I respect your position.


25 posted on 04/17/2014 10:05:25 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
I am most definitely a Christian

Technically, that's a matter of theology, and those normally get discussed in the Religion forum. These threads provide a venue for people to attack each other over religious differences in terms and tactics that aren't generally considered acceptable or allowed there.

26 posted on 04/17/2014 10:08:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Actually there are several. King James Version for one. And I don’t ever recall seeing the Gospel of Christ in any of the different Bibles I’ve seen. It would have been an Autobiography.

I am not trying to be an @ss here, but there are different versions of the Bible. It is a collection. It has been put together by men. Gospels were left out, other text edited. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

I am not ready to accept every number, word, comma, is completely accurate and that nothing, not one word, ever uttered by Christ has been lost.

Do you really believe that? And if you do..please tell me just which published version of the Bible is the ONE?


27 posted on 04/17/2014 10:16:15 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st; MrB

God existence is not predicated upon our belief or acceptance.

The Bible is an extremely well document book with original writings available for verification. Everything in it has multiple sources except for 3 sentences.

So belief in the Bible as being accurate is not “extreme”. For example there is more documentation of Christs actual existence, activities, and actual death then there is of Plato’s existence.


28 posted on 04/17/2014 10:17:58 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st

Gospels were NOT left out. Books of questionable origin and content were left out.


29 posted on 04/17/2014 10:20:00 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Oops! I saw this was about evolution. I thought is was a matter of theology.


30 posted on 04/17/2014 10:20:25 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st
All transcripts of the Bible are derived from the codices, Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. They are taken from the autographs, which no longer exist. KJV is simply ONE translation, not a work unto itself taken from nothing. The NIV is another translation, taken from the same codices.

Tossing the "Gospel of Christ" in is juvenile.

I am not ready to accept every number, word, comma, is completely accurate and that nothing, not one word, ever uttered by Christ has been lost.

I do, with the caveat that the codices contained no commas. No one has stated that the Bible contains everything spoken by Christ, John himself said that the whole world would not have room for the books that would fill. The point of the matter is that Christ spoke of Creation. His Word is Truth, either you believe Him or you do not. The choice is individual and carries with it specific consequence.

And if you do..please tell me just which published version of the Bible is the ONE?

Take your pick, they all come from the same source. Do you believe God or man?

31 posted on 04/17/2014 10:29:12 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jcon40
If we only use 5-10% of our brain

THis is a myth. We use all of our brains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

Or just type 10% brain myth in any search engine for more

32 posted on 04/17/2014 10:30:06 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

You are a Christian yet you believe there was death before the fall of man in the Garden? If you don’t believe the Bible, what is your “Christian” doctrine based on? Do you simply accept those doctrines that seem reasonable to your fallen mind?

I remind one and all:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)

That fact was stated in at least four other Bible verses (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:22, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23). Based on how often and how clearly the Scriptures makes this point, I can only believe God puts a high premium on taking Him at His word.


33 posted on 04/17/2014 10:34:29 AM PDT by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

bookmark


34 posted on 04/17/2014 10:35:23 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Appreciate the view. Read the Wikipedia article.

Looks like I need to do some further reading

Thanks


35 posted on 04/17/2014 10:35:41 AM PDT by jcon40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
You are very skilled in ad hominem and straw man attacks. Intimidating anyone who would dare disagree with the "truth" you possess. You likely hope that a strong offense will take attention away from the weak creationist science you support. Have you ever considered the possibility that the creationist museums, research institutes, etc. are making money off the sincere religious beliefs of many Christians troubled by the apparent conflict between science and the literal interpretation of scripture??

Anyhow, I've listened to flood geology and anti evolution materials from various creationist sources. I've found it to be patent nonsense. However, I didn't want to form a one sided opinion.

You should go to YouTube and search for the "How The Earth Was Made" series. Search the titles a find something that interests you and watch it. One last thing, this video gives a helpful summary of geologic time.
36 posted on 04/17/2014 10:50:45 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
I am most definitely a Christian...but sorry, folks the earth is not 4K years old,

I don't know a single Christian that believes the earth is only Four thousand years old.

37 posted on 04/17/2014 11:03:29 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st
And I don’t ever recall seeing the Gospel of Christ in any of the different Bibles I’ve seen

I guess you have never read the Book of Revelation.

38 posted on 04/17/2014 11:18:53 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
You're talking about the effects of stupid laws and rogue political parties, nothing like that happens in nature.

In nature, the first moment some animal species gets penned into some small area, it most often goes extinct as was the case with the little heath hen I mentioned.

39 posted on 04/17/2014 11:28:44 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

‘Nonsense’ as it is in the brain of the believer.

Evolution has zero verifiable future predictions and continually more problems to overcome with each passing decade since 1859 and you have a problem with what God has said fcol.

Or you could read once again with an open mind this time - creationscience.com


40 posted on 04/17/2014 11:28:59 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

>>So, based on that remark I’m gonna guess you buy into AGW.<<

You would be 100% wrong. AGW meets exactly zero Scientific Theory criteria. That is why there are scientists that loudly point it out.


41 posted on 04/17/2014 11:32:58 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
Have you ever considered the possibility that the creationist museums, research institutes, etc. are making money off the sincere religious beliefs of many Christians troubled by the apparent conflict between science and the literal interpretation of scripture??

How is that relevant to the fact of evolution being a bunch of pseudoscientific bullshit?

42 posted on 04/17/2014 11:32:58 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Just because the conditions I alluded to are man-made doesn’t mean other similar conditions don’t occur in nature.

I tend to think mathematically. I can conceive of local fitness maxima that are not global. For example, you might have traits tailored to a particular local environment which tend to evolve at the expense of some others which might more often be useful. “More often useful”is what I think of as globally optimized. Do you look at it differently?


43 posted on 04/17/2014 11:39:12 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

I can see two things happening here. One is that a species cut down to a small area is vastly more susceptible to accidental extinction due to floods, hard winters, disease or whatever. Two is the fact that the first time ordinary dogs, cats, and rats get introduced into one of Darwin’s island paradises, many of the exotic creatures get wiped out.


44 posted on 04/17/2014 11:44:03 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Alright then, how old do you think the dinosaurs were? Or do you believe there were dinosaurs?


45 posted on 04/17/2014 11:47:40 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Sobering thought on “young Earth” theory: 4000 years (or 6000, or 10,000 how you squint at it) is 40 one-hundred year lifespans (or 60, or 100). That’s not long, especially when you’re pushing a half century yourself.


46 posted on 04/17/2014 11:49:55 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Before you can find the right hill, someone will start watering trees. Prepare accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2; Da Coyote

And yet all the physical evidence shows no evidence of mankind living for anything beyond 10k years [and even that is being generous] which is in complete agreement with the biblical account.

The link below shows just how much factual evidence evolutionary science is willfully ignoring [as they do with anything they can not explain].

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


47 posted on 04/17/2014 12:01:24 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Well, since evolution has a great deal of objective support in the geologic record and since food geology can be easily disproven, it occurred to me that much of “Creation science” is a money scheme selling nonsense to sincere Christians.


48 posted on 04/17/2014 12:03:12 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Yes, but there’s also pockets of unusual development in remote areas. The fact that cats can wipe out lizards on an island doesn’t mean the lizards didn’t evolve.

There’s always the problem of species destruction when a new, unchecked predator is introduced into an isolated area that hasn’t reached equilibrium. Feral cats will do a number on birds... until coyotes move in. The fact that an introduced species can wreak havoc doesn’t mean (in my book) that it is “globally” better adapted.

These are specific situations, not overall proofs, one way or the other.


49 posted on 04/17/2014 12:03:41 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
There are easily recognizable images of known dinosaur types on canyon walls and cliffs in North America and such signs used to be more common than they are now. Particularly the stegosaur ("Mishipishu" in Ojibway language, or 'water panther'), Lewis and Clark said their Indian guides were in mortal terror at the sight of those glyphs since the original meaning had been "Caution, one of these things LIVES here". Indian oral traditions (see Vine DeLoria's "Red Earth, White Lies") describe Mishipishu as having red fur, a catlike face, a sawblade back and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon, i.e. as a stegosaur.

Most of the remaining such glyphs are stick figures although all show the dorsal spikes, but the one at Agawa Rock at Lake Superior (Massinaw) is not a stick figure image:

I'm aware that stegosaurs did not have horns... Indians have always touched those glyphs up every few decades and the horns were added by such a touch-up artist who figured a creature that size needed them, long after the animal was extinct.

50 posted on 04/17/2014 12:09:10 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson