Fossil Find: Missing Link or Mountains of Assumptions?

By Bob Ellis on May 20th, 2009

j0441428 Evolutionists were all aglow yesterday as the discovery of a primate fossil was announced. While they do manage to stop short of calling the find a full-fledged “missing link” between humans and apes, they act pretty certain that it is some sort of missing link between one evolutionary form of primate and another.

This is what the Wall Street Journal had to say (and it is one of the more factual and less-speculative news reports out there):

In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.
Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar.
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.

Could this simply be a different variety of an organism we already know about, for instance like a Beagle and a German Shepherd? No, not in the eyes of evolutionists; it MUST be a missing link.

Now you’re probably so used to this kind of talk from evolutionists that you may not have even noticed something remarkable about the language used here. But stop and think for a moment about what was said and how it was said.

Do we know this fossil is 47 million years old? Did anyone see it deposited 47 million years ago, and did they keep an accurate, verifiable record of that event?

Do we know that “some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth”? Who saw that, and who left the verifiable record that this is accurate?

No uncertain terms here

In other words, notice how something which can not possibly be verified is being discussed in definitive, authoritative terms. Notice how conjecture passes itself off as “science.” There is no hint of uncertainty or reservation whatsoever in these statements.

But wait, you might say (based on having been educated on and fed a diet of such language for decades): scientists know the age of the fossils they dig up.

Really? Do you know how they know that? (They’re hoping you don’t).

They “know” it because the fossil’s location and depth within the geological column “tells” them how hold it is.

How do they know how long ago a certain depth or location within the geological column was deposited? Well, they just do. Isn’t that enough?

Well, you might say, they have scientific dating techniques to tell them how old things are.

True, there are radiometric dating methods which are used to ostensibly determine the age of both rocks and fossils. These techniques frequently claim ages of 5 million years for this rock and 100 million years for that rock, and so on.

But how do they know these dating methods are accurate? After all, if they pull a rabbit out of the hat and say it’s 50 million years old, there are no written records from 50 million years ago to call that statement into question…and neither is there one to confirm it, either.

The truth that evolutionists desperately don’t want people to find out is that these supposedly scientific dating techniques are themselves based on many assumptions–all of which must be true in order for the dating technique to be accurate.

What is an assumption? Well, an assumption is to assume something, and to assume is “to take as granted or true.” In other words, assumptions take things on faith, without knowing for sure by virtue of empirical facts, scientifically verified testing, or observational science.

Radiometric dating techniques measure the decay of certain elements in an object, and based on the state of decay, an age of the object is “determined.”

What assumptions are radiometric dating techniques based on? Here are the primary assumptions:

That the particular radioactive element decays at a constant rate
That the specimen being examined has not been contaminated with an excess amount of the measured radioactive end-product
That the specimen being examined contained none of this end-product at the time it was formed
Leeching of the parent element has not occurred

In other words, if you’re measuring the decay of uranium to lead, you must assume that the decay rate has been constant…for thousands or millions of years. How do you know the decay rate has been constant? Well, you assume it has, because no one was around 1 million or 10 million or 100 million years ago to record and ensure that conditions on the earth have not accelerated or decelerated or temporarily affected the decay rate during this time.

How do you know the specimen wasn’t contaminated with lead at the time the specimen was formed? Well, you assume it wasn’t.

How do you know the specimen hasn’t been contaminated with lead from an outside source during the intervening alleged 50 million years? Well, you assume it hasn’t.

How do know some outside force has not caused an unexpected removal of the parent uranium during the intervening alleged 50 million years? Well, you assume nothing did.

And if after all these assumptions the date still comes in not matching the geological column or some other factor you believe to be contradictory? Well, you then assume the specimen was contaminated and throw out the results.

It would be virtually impossible to reliably make the assumptions above for the past 100 years, much less the last 1,000 years…or 1 million years…or longer. With all the changes that could have and likely have occurred over history in solar radiation, cosmic radiation, atmospheric density, meteor strikes, moisture levels, volcanic eruptions, various cataclysmic events, and a myriad of other possibilities, to seriously make such an assumption runs far past arrogance and deep into the territory of the insane.

You probably had no idea that “science” was so scientific, did you? You probably didn’t realize that “science” was so full of assumptions and uncertainties, did you?

Even liberal search engine Google gets into the spirit of the hype

After all, the “scientific” community and the “mainstream” media tell you these things with such a tone of absolute certainty in their voices, there’s simply no reason for you to question the veracity of their statements, is there?

Maybe they don’t know about the host of obviously erroneous readings which have been obtained using radiometric dating techniques compared to observational science. In other words, both organic and inorganic samples of recent origin that we know the age of through observation have been dated by radiometric techniques at wildly erroneous ages. Things we know by observation are only decades or a hundred years old have been dated at thousands or even millions of years old.

But we are supposed to believe these techniques are accurate when dating things alleged to be millions of years old–things no one saw created or deposited, and thus cannot be confirmed or denied to be those ages?

You know what they say about what happens when you assume, right? It makes an ass out of u and me.

But the reasonable person understands that in an imperfect world where historical records are imperfect at best, and going back more than a few hundred years are very scattered and scarce, assumptions have to be made at some point in the process of scientific investigation.

The thing, though, which is laughably hypocritical on the part of evolutionists is that (1) they like to pretend their assertions are “settled” and “factual” and “beyond question,” and (2) they come arrogantly unglued when a creationist or ID proponent makes assumptions.

So why don’t we see more “we think” and “it might” and “our theory is” language from evolutionists? It would certainly be more intellectually honest.

That’s because–though they would never in a million years admit it–most evolutionists have a theological faith concerning their beliefs about the universe and our origins. It is not so much about science as it is about their theology–the theology that says man is the highest and most intelligent being in the universe, and that humans are not morally accountable to a supreme being who sets the standard for right and wrong.

If they want to believe that–despite all the insurmountable problems with the theory of evolution that make it impossible within its own framework, and despite the mountain of evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe–that’s their prerogative.

But it is extremely disingenuous for evolutionists to pass off their multitude of assumptions as established factual science. It is also the height of arrogance and hypocrisy for them to pretend their own mountain of assumptions don’t exist while snobbishly condemning creationists and ID proponents for their assumptions.

Do I expect most evolutionists to get with the program and start acting like honest people any time soon? No. But the more people who realize theirs is a house of cards built on assumptions and arrogance, the closer our society will get to an environment where genuine scientific inquiry and learning can take place.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Categories: Commentary
Tags: creation, evolution, science

Brian Rutledge

For those who are conflicted on modern science and a young earth creation view, I would highly recommend Gordon J Glover's easy to watch video series on www.beyondthefirmament.com. Click on the video section and watch the 16 part series on Science and Christianity. Glover is a devoutly religious man who has probed deeply into the natural sciences and religion and has an simple, inteliigent discussion thats fun and informative to watch. Once you watch the first 10 minute segment, you wont be able to stop.

Bob Ellis

I think I watched these videos a year or two ago, but watched the first two again just to be sure. Unfortunately it seems to be nothing more than another attempt to reconcile the Bible with secular interpretations of scientific truth.

Every attempt to do this--this one included--leaves the Bible portrayed as nothing but a myth struggling to remain relevant--a profound misunderstanding of both Biblical truth and secular understanding.

There are elements of Biblical truth in many of the ancient mythologies. Not surprising, since knowledge of the truth and the creation account would have filtered down from Noah, his sons and their families, and as the various people-groups spread out across the planet, either this knowledge was not passed down intact and various elements were made up to fill in the gaps...or various people groups found God's truth to restrict them in ways in which they did not want to be restricted, so they "adjusted" the facts about the universe and the creation account.

This disseration also seems to ignore direct examination of the Biblical creation account while concentrating on the scientific and astronomical theories of various cultures which did not ascribe to the Biblical account of creation and science. Seems a bit disingenuous to say, "Here, let's compare the Bible and science, and let's look at ancient thoughts on science, but we won't take a direct look at what the Bible actually says about creation and science."

It also seems to imply that the ancient writers of the Bible picked up on ancient scientific theory and put elements of it into what they wrote in the Bible. There is no evidence of this either from Biblical or secular references...but it does make a convenient theory to diminish the reliablilty of Biblical truth.

Some terms of common vernacular--whether accurate or inaccurate--are useful in developing a common frame of reference and are sometimes used in the Bible. But then, even in our "enlightened" day and age, we still talk about "sunrise" and "sunset" even though we have long known that the sun does not actually "rise" or "set". More double-standard manufactured with the intent of diminishing Biblical accuracy in people's minds: "If you or I say 'sunrise' or 'sunset' in order to communicate a larger truth, well, that's okay. When the Bible does the same thing, it proves the larger truth itself is not actually true."

As the video progresses, this approach continues. It concentrates on mistakes made by the Christian religious establishment during the Middle Ages--mistakes made because they themselves had relegated Biblical truth to the back seat, in favor of human interpretations of truth--in too closely embracing mistaken secular interpretations of science.

So while this video contains a healthy sprinkling of truthful and accurate facts, it contains an equal or greater measure of error, and worse, does nothing to help one accurately distinguish the difference. In taking this approach, it only succeeds in unfairly and inaccurately marrying Biblical statements about creation and science to man-made errors regarding both.

It does somewhat accurately portray the progressive nature of secular scientific understanding. I find it ironic, though, that evolutionists do not accept the progressive nature of scientific understanding--at least not as it relates to evolution theory. Evolution theory is, of course, established and (in their minds) will never be disproved. There is nothing "progressive" when it comes to evolution doctrine; it only is, which is incidentally one of the points which makes it more religion than science.

Brian Rutledge

In your third paragraph, you mentioned that there are elements of biblical truth in the ancient mythologies. From Noah and his descendants, subjects like the creation story would or could change as the people fanned out over the world. You said that either this knowledge was not passed down in tact or gaps were filled in by variuos groups that found God's word too restrictive and thus their beliefs were not the correct ones.. I understand that .

You then commented that this seems to ignore direct examination of the Biblical creation account. Is there really a way to examine the creation story directly if it also was passed down verbally for over a thousand years before being written down. How do you know that Noah and his descendants didnt alter the creation story or fill in gaps to meet their needs.

I know you believe the creation story, but you believe it becasue you believe the Noah lineage to have told the truth. Isn't that relying on the assumption that for a thousand years or more the creation story was handed down without alteration or one single mistake.. What you are saying is that you believe in the creation story, but you are assuming that it was handed down without alteration. Now do you know that ?

I know what the implication of saying that means, but how do you know your version isnt a ' false' one ?

Bob Ellis

Ah, that's more clear.

What I was getting at when I the video didn't directly examine the Biblical creation account was this. The video spent little if any time looking at what the Bible actually says about creation, and instead spent virtually all it's time talking about Egyptian, Greek and other mythologies and ideas. How can you truly and accurately compare "Bible versus secular science" when you spend nearly all your time comparing "Greek and Egyptian mythology versus science." It ends up looking like "bait and switch" (i.e. saying we're going to compare Judeo-Christian claims to secular science, then actually comparing Egyptian claims to secular science), and I'm led to believe a great deal of that bait and switch is intentional.

As to how the creation story made its way into the book of Genesis, we're not completely sure. Some believe that God gave this information directly to Moses and he wrote it down. Others believe God directed and inspired Moses to examine any available written or oral records of these events; and if we are to have any serious believe in the reliability of the Bible, we accept that God pointed Moses to the accurate records and away from the inaccurate ones. Believing that God directed Moses to the good records and away from the inaccurate ones is, of course, a matter of faith, but that faith is supported and bolstered by the Bible's record of accuracy in areas that are more readily and concretely verifiable.

Of course, going back to the belief that God gave the information directly to Moses who then wrote it down in Genesis, that negates any intentional or accidental alteration of the creation account; God was there for the whole thing, with a front-row seat, so would know exactly what did and didn't happen in perfect detail. Of course, if he just pointed Moses to accurate written and oral records, this would again negate any intentional or accidental alteration of the creation account making it into Genesis because God would have known which records were unreliable and would have guided Moses away from them.

Either way, if one makes the basic assumption that the Creator of the universe was indeed involved in the writing of Genesis, then we can rationally expect that Genesis account to be accurate. And if God wasn't involved in the recording of Genesis, then you might as well throw the whole Bible out or use it for toilet paper, because pretty much everything else in the Bible relies on its accuracy, from major doctrines down to the fact that Jesus Christ himself quoted it authoritatively--and if Jesus Christ didn't realize he was quoting from an inaccurate record, then he wasn't really who he said he was (the Savior and the Son of God), and any faith in him as Savior and Redeemer is misplaced and worthless.

But because of the track record of the Bible--not once found to be in error, despite thousands of skeptics trying for hundreds of years to find one--I have a high degree of confidence in those areas that require some exercise of faith (as even the belief in Julius Caesar requires some faith).

Brian Rutledge

Bob,

In your next to last paragraph, you stated that whichever way the Biblical account of the creation story got into Genesis, one must make the basic assumption that God was indeed involved in its writing . But the only way you can make that basic assumption is by reading the creation story in Genesis and assuming it is true because the written word is what you are going on. The written word is what tells and informs you about this God.

Isnt that like saying I am assuming the written word is true because I am a priori assuming God was the author but I am assuming God is the author because I am relying on the written word being true. Isnt that circular reasoning.

The analogy would be a man walks up to you and hands you a manuscript and you assume he is the author. Then you read the manuscript and it also informs you that the man is the author. To believe that the man is the author and then believe that the written manuscript is truthful , arent you making two assumptions, either of which confirms the other ? .

Bob Ellis

If you go back and read that paragraph again, you'll find that I qualified the underlying basis for believing the accuracy and origin of the Genesis account for creation: "if one makes the basic assumption that the Creator of the universe was indeed involved in the writing of Genesis...". If that initial assumption is made, then the assertion that the account is accurate is logical and reasonable.

I explained the basis of my acceptance that the Bible is God's word (and subsequently that God was involved in the writing of Genesis) in my final paragraph. I doubt if there is a single science book that can maintain the unimpeachable track record of the Bible for even 25 years, much less 25 centuries (more, actually).

If we can put faith in our flawed and ever-changing textbooks, how much more so a book that hasn't been proved wrong a single time in over 3,000 years?

Satcomguy

Bob, you are kidding, right? You who railed against assumption in your hit piece are basing everything you believe on one assumption considerably more far-fetched than any involved in the science of evolution.
The reason that textbooks change is because more information generally becomes known over time. The bible stopped 1600 years ago, its collection of myths, "revelations" and relevancy complete.

And Dr. Theo, unless your degrees are from Liberty University, I do not believe that you are educated to degree-level in all of those fields. If nothing else, referring twice to trilobite fossils 500 billion years old renders your claims suspect.

dr. theo

You are correct, of course, about the reference to "500 billion years." I guess I had a brain cramp and actually repeated it several times in the post. I meant 500 MILLION, of course. Thanks for pointing that out, Satcomguy.

While Liberty University is a fine institution, I never attended classes there. I received my BA in Zoology from a small liberal arts college in Indiana and my advanced degrees at large state universities in Illinois. I practice emergency medicine full-time and teach in a liberal arts university part-time. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my previous comment.

Bob Ellis

Actually the final book of the Bible was written about 1,900 years ago. Interesting that in all those years (including the 1,500 or so years before that when the first book of the Bible was written), not a single statement or claim of the Bible has been disproved.

Yet various claims of evolution theory get ditched every year as scientist realize they were wrong about this, then wrong about that, then wrong about the other.

This wasn't a treatise against assumptions; since none of us were there at the beginning, and there are no written records from that time, we all must make some assumptions. I was just hoping to lead a few people to realize that evolution theory isn't the "settled science" its apostles would have you believe, and that it is in fact a theory based almost entirely on assumptions.

Brian Rutledge

Bob You made the comment that it seems a little disingenuous to look at the ancient view of science......... saying that we really cant bring this up as an example of Biblical inerrantcy because the scientific views of the time were indeed ancient and incorrect. Why then could you not say these same ancient people had a view of history ( the creation story ) that was incorrect as well since it had been handed down word of mouth. If The Biblie is the inerrant and truthful word of God, how can you say the 'scientififc' view of the ancients is less reliable or truthful than their 'historic' or creation story view.

Scientific statements dont count but historical stories do ?Is not the word of God true no matter if the subject is 'science' or 'historical' acounts? I didnt know Biblical inerrancy was dependant on subject matter.

Bob Ellis

Excuse me, but "Huh?"

Bill Meadows

Stuart I dont think the argument for comparing sand and the formation of wings is valid, because you are comparing apples and oranges. You are trying to draw an analogy between the non-livung and the living and they are in totally different realms and cant be compared.

Many fossils of prehistoric reptiles have been found that show small feathers on the legs of these reptiles. These feathers were not used for flight, but for other purposes-warmth, protection.As time went by and more feathers covered the reptiles body , arms and legs, they would serve another purpose-gliding. Then more time and genetic interactions occured, they were used for propelled flight.You have to think in terms of millions of years and slow,slow gradual change.The first bird just didnt 'come about' but slowly transitioned

Yes, it takes millions of years and many genetic variations.

Why does the whale have bones and digit-like bones in its flippers that have characteristics similiar to man.Bones in flippers are not real effective for swimming and you will find the flippers and fins of the really good swimmers-fish- have light weight cartilage that is pliable and makes for superb propulsion.Rigid bont strucures dont. That is because the whale is a recent evolutionary creature and has not evolved enough yet to lose the heavy bones in their flippers. Bones and digits in flippers would not be the work of any intelligent. 'designer' .Since evolution is slow and does make such slow changes, the best 'design' does not seem apparent and is always subject to change that can improve with time.

dr. theo

"Many fossils of prehistoric reptiles have been found that show small feathers on the legs of these reptiles."

That's very interesting, but can you explain to us at what point did theropods develop the unique lungs, muscle structure and neurologic control systems that made flight possible. Surely there are some fossils that provide clues about these changes. How many variations did it take to get the airfoil correct for adequate lift? What about the wing chord and wing loading problems? The center of gravity must have taken a great deal of trial and error--where are the fossils. The unidirectional air flow of avian lungs with multiple air sacs in addition to unique lung structure is radically different that any other vertebrates. When did "dinosaurs" evolve this type of system? Besides a unique muscle structure, flight requires an entirely different kind of neuro control system. When did this system (actually many different kinds) evolve?

There are a whole lot more problems to flight that having a few feathers on the legs, or anywhere else. Where are the fossils to show these transitions and why are there feathered bird fossils contemporaneous with most strata containing dinosaur fossils?

Bill Meadows

dr,theo You are an educated man and a man of science and I am surprised that you would use the argument of " Why cant we find all these fossils" . That may work for the general public, but you know full well the conditions must be perfect for fosslization and that the entire earth has not been scoured and that there are not millions of people digging 24 hours a day.Please

i am not trying to be arrogant in saying catilagenous flippers are superior to those with bones in them, but basic design engineering has shown that the more rigid the flipper, the less propulsive ability it has.They are more pliable and versatile when made of light weight material.

As far as the question of where are all these variations for flight, you again are saying ' where are all the fossils to prove it'. Let me ask you this, how many fossils would it take to convince you. You want to know where the fossils are, so tell me how many i need find. Since you are demanding more numbers of fossils, well give me the number that would convince you. I say there are enough now to make some conclusions and you say there are not, so give me a number. You cant just keep changing the goal posts.

dr. theo

Mr. Meadows, most paleontologists, including Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History, have admitted that the sampling of fossils now classified are likely representative of the fossil record in general. It is highly unlikely that there will be any huge finds that fill in all the gaps in the record. As to the conditions that create fossils, I don’t know of any evolutionary theories to account for the hundreds of square miles of billions upon billions of fossil herring in the Green River formation (as an example). It is also interesting that almost all these fossils were swimming in the same general direction when they were fossilized. Can you tell me, Mr. Meadows, what are the conditions necessary for fossilization of billions of creatures literally frozen in time, intact, and in many cases in the act of eating or copulating? Have you ever been diving or seen videos of the ocean bottom? How many intact carcasses do you see?

Don’t you see, Mr. Meadows that if it takes millions of years and billions of creatures to effect the changes claimed by evolutionists that we should find the fossil record virtually littered with the transitional forms that eventually lead to a significant morphologic change. We may not find them all, but shouldn’t we expect to find some?

You claim that critics of the theory of Darwinian evolution are guilty of “changing the goal posts” whenever a new find is found. I don’t believe that is true. Most of the remarkable finds that were touted as the final link proving evolution have subsequently been found to be frauds or known fossils that were misinterpreted, so you’ll forgive my skepticism. I believe that will be the case with this latest missing link, “Ida.” Let’s wait and see if paleontologists remain as enthusiastic in a year or two.

What would it take to cause me to reconsider? First, I would require honesty about all that we know to date. I cannot accept data from a science that relies so heavily on speculation and “just so” stories to convince the uninformed. Next, I would like to see a complete fossil record of a major morphologic change from beginning to end and if there are some minor omissions then, at least, a plausible mechanism to explain the changes.

The transition from terrestrial life to flight would be very convincing. Show me the fossils that clearly show a sequential change from limbs to wings or from scales to feathers. Do you know that the earliest fossil examples of feathers are exactly the same as the complex structure of vanes and interlocking barbs that we see in modern birds. Did feathers evolve into these complex structures from simple scales in one fell swoop? Where are the intermediate proto-feathers? The shape, muscle arrangement and neurologic control of wings for flight are extremely complex (actually far beyond our current understanding) yet there exists no known intermediate forms that might represent evolutionary attempts toward complex flight.

I think it is arrogance for us to presume to know what an efficient design is and what is less so. Richard Dawkins made this mistake when he proudly proclaimed that the vertebrate eye is poorly designed, thus proving that it was not created by an all-knowing Creator. It was only a couple of years before physiologists determined that the design having the photoreceptors at the innermost layer next to the vascular choroid layer was the only possible arrangement because of the incredible metabolic demands of the rods and cones. Proximity to the blood supply was necessary to provide the nutrients and oxygen and to carry away waste products and heat. Dawkins was wrong and it was pure arrogance for him to speculate about what design was best. He assumed that he had complete understanding of the physiologic necessities of the cells of the eye. He succeeded in displaying for the world his ignorance and his monumental arrogance.

My area of expertise is human anatomy and physiology, but my biochemist friends tell me that the matter of evolutionary change becomes infinitely more complex and inexplicable at the level of cellular physiology and biochemistry. The more we learn the more improbable the notion of complex systems arising from random occurrences. There is a wind kicking up and the house of cards that is Dawinism cannnot stand very much longer.

Bill Meadows

dr. theo--- I don't think it's arrogance to say the human eye is poorly designed. I think it is honesty. It isn't arrogance to say that 10% of the eyes of typical 12 year olds reveal myopia or astigmatism requiring corrective lenses. It's just poor design whether done by evolution or any other force.. Are we as humans not allowed to question why an eye would become defective so early in life no matter who or what is responsible for the defect ?

I don't like Dawkins because he does have an atheistic agenda, but I think his basic views on the eye are correct. As per your example, a creator with all his power and intellect could easily have made the rods and cones so that they didn't require all this enormous metabolic need to function, thus eliminating the need for such close proximity to the vascular plexus,

If you took an anatomical engineer who knew nothing of evolution or creation and showed him an eye and ask if the design could be better, i would bet he would have many ideas. I myself would start with the curvature problems with the cornea

I know it seems arrogant and is offensive to you for anyone to question Gods design, but I am questioning the eyes design, irregardless of who or what is responsible for it. If evolution ie responsible, then it did a poor job Only by questioning the design might we some day have a solution for its defects.

dr. theo

"...I am questioning the eyes design, irregardless (sic) of who or what is responsible for it."

God created the universe and everything in it, including space and time. He also created the laws that govern the physical universe. To expect, or demand, that God depart from the laws that He created to satisfy your imperfect understanding of nature is beyond arrogance. The beauty and marvel of creation is the amazing consistency of God's physical laws that results in the universe that we inhabit.

That error occurs in nature, such as astigmatism or myopia are not due to problems with design. The design is perfect according to the laws that God established. Nature began a downward death spiral once sin entered the perfect world that God created. It is for that reason that disease and death occur not because of a poor design.

"If you took an anatomical engineer who knew nothing of evolution or creation and showed him an eye and ask if the design could be better, i would bet he would have many ideas."

What exactly is an "anatomical engineer?" I've never met anyone that had a Ph.D. in anatomic design (though I must admit that it sounds like a pretty exciting job!). Anyway, it would be very presumptuous, if not arrogant, to think that we can come up with a design that is better than what God created. We’d have to know everything about a system as complex as the eye to make an intelligent judgment as to whether we could do better than the Creator. It is one thing to try to correct problems when they occur, such as corrective lenses, but that’s an entirely different proposition from the design elements.

Bill Meadows

dr theo--- I am not expecting or demanding that God depart from the physicsl laws that govern the universe, but am looking objectively at an eye and trying to ascertain if it could have been initially designed better.Now if you are saying that it was designed perfectly and that sin and the fall of man affected that design,then fine.

However, if a twelve year old ask you why they had astigmatism or say....cancer, you would have to tell them it was because man is a fallen creature. If you dont believe that astigmatism is caused by man being a fallen creature, then you would have to tell the child that the eye wasnt designed to see well in about 10%
of twelve year olds.

I also know there is no such things as anatomical engineers-YET

Lastly, i was a little surprised by your last comment. Genetics may indeed allow us to find the genetic design sequences that cause diseases. I doubt astigmatism will be one, but who knows and ceratinly there will be some.If we understand that genetic design genotype
BEORE it phenotypically expresess itself and correct it, we will avoid those diseases.

Hope you dont consider that being an example of man interfering with Gods perfect law of design that,according to your beliefs,went awry, since man is a fallen creature..I dont think it presumptuous or arrogant to take a small " fallen" child whose has a gene marker that indicates a bad disease is in the future and altering that design genetically.It is sort of like making the child " unfallen" if you will.

dr. theo

Mr. Meadows, there have been dozens of comments from Mr. Ellis, DCM, me and others that you apparently have chosen to ignore. You have addressed none of the arguments that have been asserted in this thread, but persist in making ill-informed, bigoted and even ridiculous comments like the last one about a "fallen child."

I have devoted my life to relieving suffering and curing disease using all the amazing scientific modalities that we have devised. There is nothing in Christian theology that suggests that using the gifts God has provided to help others is contrary to His will. I have also had more than my share of health problems and have availed myself of the miracles of modern medicine. This does not change my understanding of God's creation and the fallen state of nature, but rather convinces me of God's love for all of us and His will to restore our spirits to the perfect state He has planned for us.

I know that all of this is far beyond your ability to comprehend, Mr. Meadows, but I hope that some other readers might gain something from my comments.

dr. theo

"Yes, it takes millions of years and many genetic variations."
Response: Why can't we find fossils from those millions of years and multitudes of variations?

"Bones and digits in flippers would not be the work of any intelligent. 'designer’.(sic)"
That's pretty arrogant, Mr. Meadows. How would you know what is or is not a "good" design? Is the fact that these creatures have been around and doing pretty well for quite a long time sufficient evidence of for a successful design?

Your theory about the superior characteristics of cartilaginous v bony endoskeleton is not borne by the evidence--some of the fastest and most agile swimmers in the sea are BIRDS with a very well-developed bony skeleton.

Your speculation about improvements in a design via small changes over time sounds OK except for the unfortunate fact that it cannot be scientifically verified. The adaptive changes we've been able to witness have nothing to do with mutations, new genetic information or evolution of new distinct species.

Bill Meadows

I think DCM's comment that even if a " million fossils were found, that it would only prove that the organisms once existed and were rapidly buried in sediment" was quite revealing. It is saying that it doesnt matter how many fossils are found, that you can not use them as a case for evolution.

Well, as per DCM, lets say a million fossils were found that scientists say represent the speciation from reptiles to birds. The fossil that is identical to the lizard with only the very slightest difference is noted.Then another fossil identical to THAT fossil with only an infinitessimal difference, is noted. And so on until after the millionth fossil which is identical to a bird, is noted.

As per DCM, it would say that these are all different species? Some are different species and some arent?
Again since DCM brought this up and it is the belief of creationists that no matter how many fossils are found, it doesnt support evolution, what would be the explanation? Would it be that there was once millions of species with only infinitessimal differences ?

Wouldn't it be also be .reasonable to think they were connected in some linear fashion. Again, I am using DCM's scenario that stated that even if a million fossils were found, it would say nothing for evolution.Again I would just ask what the creationist explanation would be using DCM's scenario.

Stuart

It probably would take millions of iterations to make the big leap to a new complex feature. For example a wing. To clarify my earlier question: How does the first bird come about? I'm not an expert on biology, but I know there are many depended feature and processes involving flight. How does a create mutate over time develop this? How would a transitional creature evolve and hold onto a useless symmetric appendage that that had all but one of the specialized muscles, structures, hollow bones etc. (assuming a featherless wing)"appear". Oh, and this first winged creature has to have the genetic information to use these wings.

The odds of the above happening are probably similar to a sandcastle forming by throwing a bucket of dry sand in the air. It goes against the laws of nature, but I'm sure after millions of years of throwing that sand it would happen.

On a side note, I noticed that "The Link" book came out recently this month. Interesting that they needed to prepare a staged release of all this information.

john parsons

I was not surprised to see you censor anonymous--when the logic of creationists start closing in on them their normal response is to start name-calling then they "take their ball and go home". I just wanted to praise anonymous for his / her patient and intelligent remarks. I think the Dover School board case settled this issue.John Parsons

Bob Ellis

I shut down Anonymous for the reasons stated. The lack of objectivity, the hypocrisy, and the repetitious tripe gets pretty old after it's been refuted several times. Unfortunately there are a lot of evolutionists who are too dense or too emotionally invested in their theological beliefs to see their own inconsistencies; I try to help them get beyond this, but after a while it becomes tiresome, boring and overly redundant.

Brian Rutledge

I am a non-creationist who accepts evolution as fact, but think the majority of ' secular' paleontologists are horrified at how this fossil was allowed to be presented to the scientific world and the public in general. Dr. Gingerich, one of the co-writers of the paper said he felt pressured to release their findings and stated "it's not the way i like to do science". Looks like they relented to media pressure to some degree.How much is still unclear, but any is too much.

Dr. Horum, the other main contributor of the article, apparently referred to the fossil as ' the missing link" between presimians and simians. I hope this isnt true because paleontologists know there is no such thing as one missing link. One fossil proves nothing, but the study of a successive line of fossils is what paleontology and evolution is built on.

But here is the beauty of science. All of this hype will be soon forgotten and thousands of experts all over the world will have access to this finding and put this fossil in its proper place. It will merely be another fossil that helps explain the successive lineage of evolution. Shame on the scientists for allowing the media to be involved in the forefront of how this fossil was introduced to the world.

DCM

You're right that one fossil proves nothing. But ultimately a million fossils prove nothing except that the organisms involved existed and were rapidly buried in sediment. All their ancestor/descendant relationships are merely assumed because evolutionism requires such assumptions.

Anyway, like most controversial things, the origins issue is controversial because it involves a conflict between what is true (in this case, God the creator) and what many people *want* to be true (no creator to be accountable to).

Those who accept evolution want it to be in the same boat as, say, the earth being round or the planets going around the sun. But those things are uncontroversial because they're known & proven; evolution is merely *wanted.* Believers in creation, at least those who have done their homework, can see where the evidence really points, can see the fatal problems with evolutionists' assumptions, can see the philosophical roots of evolutionism, and so on. Try as you might, you cannot get us to "un-see" those things. You can deny they're there, but you can't hide them. You can accuse us of ignorance all you want, but you can't make us stop knowing what we already know -- which is essentially what you want from us.

DCM

...and by the way, part of the beauty of accepting the Creator is that you don't have to ignore a single thing you actually *know*; and you become able to accept *more* facts without having to explain them away. You just have to let go of a very large boatload of things that aren't known at all, just speculated (in the unsuccessful attempt to make sense of the world without accepting the Creator).

But, as I said, this controversy will never go away, because there will always be both those who accept the truth and those who refuse it.

These discussions do get tiresome though; disputing with evolutionists is like arguing with a recording -- it says the same things over and over, and it doesn't listen.

DCM

This article may be linked to from Dakota Voice soon anyway, but it's worth mentioning now:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/0...

Take note that it consists almost entirely of quotes from *secular* sources.

The result of media-hyped stories like this one is that people, in the long term, think all kinds of things have proven evolution; but each big story has overlooked footnotes (recognized even by NON CREATIONIST scientists) that show that nothing has been proven at all.

Great quote from one of the articles quoted at the above link: "If this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed."

Sarah

There is a big difference between scientific theory, which is constantly tested, scrutinized, reformed, reshaped and is part of a larger argument, and "Creationism" which is not open or subject to any discussions or adjustments.

Bob Ellis

Really? You think creation theory isn't constantly tested, scrutinized, reformed, reshaped and is part of a larger argument?

Either you haven't looked at all at the ongoing discussion and evaluation occurring in creation circles, or your're just consuming the propaganda evolutionists are constantly feeding the public to divert attention from their naked emperor.

steven riley

Glad to see you admit that belief that a supernatural force or God created the world( Creation Theory ) is just a theory and not an absolute

Bob Ellis

In an objective sense, that is correct. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could only get evolutionists to own up to the fact that their theory is based almost entirely on assumptions and is mostly theological in basis and intent.

Bill Meadows

I noticed that earlier you referred to creation as Creation Theory. Since creation and evolution are JUST theories, which you say are based on assumptions, doesnt that mean Creation Theory is just based on assumptions as well ?

Bob Ellis

If you take the time to re-read, you'll notice that this was already stated.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if evolutionists could only stop pretending their theory is unquestionably established fact and admit the same?

Bill Meadows

It is not 'unquestionably' established fact, because we at least admit it can be falsified. For instance if God came down to earth and said evolution was false,then even the biggest skeptic would relinquish that belief

Bob Ellis

I honestly don't think so, Bill. They'd claim it was some special effects trick of the Religious Right or some such nonsense and go right on believing in their unworkable theory. Evolution theory isn't about science, facts or proof, and those same elements will do nothing to deter their faith in it.

DCM

The problem with your statement is that evolutionism is not a scientific theory which has been tested, etc. It is a hypothesis about the unobservable, unrepeatable past that cannot be tested, and which -- due to its sacred-cow status -- is not allowed to be challenged; new evidence is either bent to fit it or tossed out.

And contrary to a lot of popular hype, evolution (i.e., not just variation but the gaining of new features) has not been observed in the present day. For example, the adaptability we observe in bacteria is evidence of awesome design; but in millions of observed generations not one has taken the first step toward becoming anything other than bacteria.

You're correct in that creationism depends on an unchanging assumption; but so does evolutionism. The difference is, creationism depends on an historically true assumption, and accounts for real-world evidence infinitely better than evolutionism does.

Brian Rutledge

Bob- In an earlier comment you said evolution is impossible because it goes against its own scientific principles or framework ( the natural laws of the universe ). , As an example, you said it is against scientific principles for life to spring from lifeless materials. Please tell me exactly which scientific principle states that ?

dr. theo

This is called the Law of Biogenesis, and was proven by Louis Pasteur and others. It remains a "law" because no contradicting examples have as yet been observed, the claims of evolutionists notwithstanding.

Brian Rutledge

dr. theo Yes the Law of Biogenesis does say that all life today does not arise from non-life. But it does not say ( and the definition of the Law of Biogenesis is quite clear) that under vastly different circumstances, that life could have never formed from non-life.Scientists today researching the field of Abiogenesis dont use todays environment. Scientific principle definitely does not exclude that possibility, so to say it is a basic principle of science or natural law of science that life cant have ever come from non-life, is incorrect which is what Bob postulated earlier. As the argument creationists use to dispute fossils and radiometric dating, no one was there then to observe it, so how do you know what the conditions were.

dr. theo

The Law of Gravity is a "law" because it has never been observed to be false. The law of biogenesis is the same. To claim that water always falls downhill except under unspecified conditions that may or may not have existed in the past would render the theory unfalsifiable and thus an invalid scientific theory. To claim that conditions that generated life from non-life likely existed sometime in the past is nothing but speculation and, dare I say, a deep faith in abiogenesis. Unless one can specify something about those conditions and mechanisms of an earlier earth and put them to the test in the laboratory, we have an interesting philosophical debate, but it should not be mistaken for a scientific discussion.

Brian Rutledge

What i am questioning is the earlier statement by Mr. Ellis that evolution is invalid because it violates scientific principles. The particular principle mentioned was The Law of Biogenesis or that life comes only from life. This of course is a law of science and it has not been falsified. But the fact that it can be disproven( or falsified) makes it a valid scientific principle.

The fact that this law or principle CAN be disproven means evolution does not violate its own principles. That creationist argument is thus invalid. It may seem a philosophical argument to you , but falsifiability, as you know, is a keystone of scientific principles.

When i say evolution, i am talking about from the cosmologic beginning( non-life ) to life.

dr. theo

"The fact that this law or principle CAN be disproven means evolution does not violate its own principles."

"CAN" means "able to." Are you saying that you or scientists in a broader sense are able to falsify the Law of Biogenesis!?

A valid scientific theory requires that conditions be specified that WOULD falsify the claims were those conditions shown to be true. That is, a scientific theory MAY be invalidated if such and such were shown to be the case.

The Law of Biogenesis is a valid scientific principle in that it would only require ONE example of life originating from non-life to falsify the claim. Can you specify for me what piece of evidence would it take to falsify the theory of evolution? Seriously, Dr. Rutledge, there must be some scientific finding that would represent such a departure from the theory that you'd have to re-think the whole premise. Darwin thought that it would be the failure to find the transitional forms in the fossil record that would falsify the theory (and I agree), but modern scientists have disallowed that and basically said that there is nothing that will change their minds.

"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing."--attributed to Karl Popper

Bob Ellis

Are you asserting that life can spring from lifeless materials? Despite numerous scientific testing to the contrary, going back to Mendel's experiments with spontaneous generation?

Brian Rutledge

I was simply asking you to clarify what you said. i'll ask again. Which scientific principle are you referring to, states that life cant come from from nonlife. You said there is such a principle and I want you to tell me which principle it is.

Bob Ellis

It's the one established by the experiments of Mendel and many others which have repeatedly and universally found that life never, ever comes from lifeless materials. Are you then disagreeing with these findings? And on what basis?

Brian Rutledge

Bob I was wondering if you just find every single aspect of the science of evolution to be wrong or if you find any other aspects of science that dont pertain to evolution to be wrong as well. Must be a few examples.

Bob Ellis

I guess I haven't bothered to ponder every single aspect of the science or the assumptions surrounding the theory of evolution; essentially just the main, most critical ones. Like with a car, everything else could be fine, but if you're missing an engine, wheels, or even a steering wheel, you're not going to get very far. And the most critical aspects concerning the theory of evolution are just dogs that don't hunt.

I'm sure there are many aspects of the vast field of science that may be wrong as well, though I'm very tired and none in particular come to mind right now. (Well, there IS the whole made-up fantasy of anthropogenic global warming).

I take contentions regarding scientific facts and principles as they come, and as I see them. I have no interest in being wrong, and if the creation account did in fact turn out to be hooey, I'd rather know that than not. But I abandoned evolution as something I believe in many years ago because when I gave both the theory of evolution and the creation account a fair hearing, evolution came out pretty naked and the creation account works excellently within its framework.

Peter

A second 'missing link' fossil has been found in Germany within a few weeks of the first. This specimen is slightly older and not in anywhere near as good condition, but there are sufficient similarities to be sure the animal is the same species.

The first Darwinius Masillae, known as Ida, has been of immense interest as she seems to be a missing link in primate evolution. Ida is the first fossil which bridges the gap between the higher primates like monkeys, apes and humans, and their distant cousins, the lemurs.

The new fossil seems to be bigger and more sloth-like than Ida, and has been nicknamed Wida by scientists.

Rob Aninson, leading paleontologist on the project has compared the two finds. He claims that Ida is a far superior specimen in almost every way. Just before he left to go back to the dig site we asked him what he thought of Wida, and he told us "She is the weakest missing link. Goodbye."

rradical

What can we say Bob? Ignorance is strength.

But let's cut to the chase.

Your argument is not really with Biblical literalism, because I don't think you can argue with me that pi=3. (My favorite: 1 Kings 7:23, http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commen...) You will quickly change the subject to carbon dating - which only works well back about 100,000 years. (A bit far for you, but whatever.)

Your argument is not really with Darwin, either, but with the whole concept of biological succession, which the Greeks guessed at more than 2000 years before Darwin and 500 years before St Mark (or his disciples) started writing.

And really, it's not even that.

Your problem is that you cannot accept the concept that a) homo sapiens is possibly not the crown jewel of the universe and that our choices have consequences, just as you can't accept that the US of A is not the greatest expression of nationhood ever in the history -- a great nation is not good enough for you, because if we're the best ever we can't possibly ever be wrong. It's #1 in everything or nothing.

I'm really glad that Americans are showing signs of abandoning the apathy of the last 25 years.

Thank you for tying your ship to the Bush Administration, you've our nation (and our species [and genus, and family]) a huge favor by making the Republican brand look ridiculous to anyone with more than a high-school education.

So thankful to God today as I recover from a nasty pneumonia thanks to faith-inspired (I'm sure of it now) yet science-based (not scriptually-based) anti-bacterial medication.

dr. theo

You can thank the right-wing evangelical Christian Alexander Fleming for the antibiotic that cured your pneumonia, Curtis. How some of the great scientific discoveries were made by men that believed in a Creator God is one of the great mysteries of the world.

Bob Ellis

Curtis, I'm not sure whether to write off your rambling comment to the pneumonia, or simply to the fact that you're a really confused individual who claims to be a Christian on one hand, while on the other denying almost everything the God you claim to follow says. Such a dichotomy simply has to produce profound confusion and inconsistency at every turn.

One of those irrational inconsistencies being the hilarious evolutionist crutch that believing in the irrational theory of evolution is essential to biomedical science.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be to be either hot or cold, because we know what the God said about those who try to straddle the fence, and it isn't pretty.

sandy munro

Believe it or not Bob, there are plenty of devout Christians who find no conflict at all between the teachings of Jesus and the discoveries of man. Your view of science is too skewed toward your pre-judgment to make any logical sense. You cannot understand scientific process with your mindset.

Scientists have stood on the shoulder of those that came before. Scientific method does not have any conflict whatsoever with Christian faith, only with subjective dogma. It may likely be the downfall of our species that so many of us believe in things that aren't true. In this day and age if you can believe that the earth is 7000 years old, you can be talked onto an airplane with a bomb.

Finlay

DCM

"...there are plenty of devout Christians who find no conflict at all between the teachings of Jesus and the discoveries of man."

You're absolutely right that there is no conflict between the teaching of Jesus and the discoveries of man; the fact that you can even use such wording shows that you don't understand the position of those you're speaking to. The problem is that evolution is NOT a discovery of man; it is a fiction of man that he's desperately trying to make true.

And the sweeping accusations that creationists are "ignorant" is getting really old. There are plenty of ignorant Christians around, and guess what -- they're the ones who accept evolution, not the ones who reject it. Creationists are only too happy to let people hear the arguments of both sides; it is the evolutionists who only want their side to be heard, lest people find out too much. Ignorance is a player on evolutionism's team, not on creationism's.

Bob Ellis

That's an important distinction regarding discoveries and the interpretation of the implications of those discoveries.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bob Ellis

I know there are many devout Christians who find no conflict between the teachings of Jesus and the theory of evolution. I used to be one of them.

What I also was at the time was ignorant--both of the serious problems the theory of evolution has, and of the irreconcilable conflicts the theory has with Scripture. Those conflicts are somewhat extensive to explain, but the are very critical to foundational Christian doctrine; once you understand the implications of both evolution and the Bible and what they both say, you can believe one or the other, but not both. The are irreconcilable. Here is a start that I suggest you read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1...

Your belief that the creation week happened longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago is in dire conflict with Scripture, and also not supported by science. As I explained above, the only semi-serious scientific evidence of a vast age of the earth is radiometric dating...which I also explained is based on several assumptions which not only cannot be verified or proven, but stretch credulity for even 100 years, much less millions of years.

If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, I urge you to take a serious look at what evolution claims--and whether those claims are based on solid, verifiable scientific fact, or whether they're based on assumptions. And also please take a very close look at the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, including the creation account, The Fall, and what Romans says about both the condition of man and what Christ came to accomplish.

Anonymous

Hello. While I prefer to remain anonymous I will say that I am a professor of evolutionary biology. I'm not a frequent commentor on many blogs, but I feel there are a few misconceptions here than need to be cleared up.

You seem to have a good understanding of the methods used to date fossils, but you seem to misunderstand how we do science. Most of science is not performed through actually witnessing something firsthand, as you seem to suggest. Rather, it is much like a court case, based on forensic evidence that we can draw a reasonable conclusion from. No one has been to the center of the sun, yet we 'know' hydrogen atoms are being fused into helium there from countless sources of evidence. I put 'know' in quotations because no science is 100% certain. I cannot be 100% certain that this computer exists in front of me, but all the evidence I have suggests that it does. This is as close to certainty as we can get in science.

You seem to suggest that scientists are motivated by some disdain for religion or some burning desire to 'prove' evolution. I assure you this is not the case. I myself am a devout Christian. I support evolution only because the evidence suggests it. If one of my colleagues were to discover a cow buried in Jurassic strata, I would be forced to admit I was wrong. This would be nothing new for scientists, we've been doing it for many hundreds of years.

You are correct, no one saw Darwinius masillae (Ida as she is known in the press) evolve. We use forensic evidence to deduce that she did. We see new species evolving today, in species with relatively short gestation times: bacteria, invertebrates, birds. Darwin's theory reasons that if simple changes in organisms occur over the short term, species can evolve dramatically over the long term, millions of years even. We conclude that if organisms are evolving today, they were evolving in the past as well. We then use modern genetic studies of primates, including ourselves, as further evidence.

One of your biggest problems with paleontology seems to be on the subject of geochronology. You seem to have a good grasp of it: rock layers are dated by the radioactive decay of isotopes found in them. But more than one method is used. This is called corroborating evidence. Again, like a court case, if DNA can place you at a crime scene, and a hidden camera can as well, you were almost certainly there. These two pieces of evidence are independent of each other, so it is highly unlikely they are both wrong. Many different isotopes are used in radiometric dating, not only the decay process of uranium to lead. All of the isotopes consistently yield results within 1% of each other. Not only that, but radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which are cycles that depend only on astronomical factors (such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity). Radiometric dating is also consistent with the luminescence dating method, and it consistently gives results with the notion that "deeper is older". These methods of dating are all independent of each other, what is the chance that they are all wrong?

Just to ease your concerns, I will address some of the 'assumption' you claim must be made to accept radiometric dating. Radioactive elements DO decay at a constant rate. Although radionuclides may have several different paths of decay, their half-lives and decay constants have not been observed to change. Because this has never been observed to occur, it is on you to prove that decay constants are not constant after all, as there is currently no evidence to suggest this. It is theoretically possible that contamination could significantly change the results- absolutely closed systems do not exist even under laboratory conditions. However, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple, independent radiometric dating methods produce consistent results. Some rocks could be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the exact same amount.

I don't intend to attack your beliefs, but I do hope to help you more fully understand the nature of evolution. If you have any questions or grievances, please respond.

Have a good day.

DCM

This brings up one of the common P.R. falsehoods of evolutionism: that it's driven by evidence and NOT by some desire to oppose God. First of all, anyone willing to look honestly at the evidence will find that it most emphatically does NOT support evolutionism. Secondly, one does not have to look very long to find how deep the connection is between evolutionism and militant atheism. The two things are not just joined at the hip; they are not just two sides of the same coin; they are the SAME side of the same coin. The philosophical neutrality of evolutionistic "science" is a flat-out lie, and any good evolutionist / atheist web site will demonstrate this colorfully.

When it comes down to it, both evolution and special creation violate the laws of nature. The difference is, the Creator isn't bound by the laws of nature, but a naturalistic origin would be. And a naturalistic origin that violates the laws of nature just can't have happened.

Stuart

Do these current examples of evolution have new unique functions in their DNA? Or are they just adapting with in their species?

I don't remember evolutionary theory being able to explain complex features.

How is it that as you can look further into the microspcope or further into space that it seems limitless, more complex vs. more simple?

How is it possible that something came from nothing? How did the scientific laws come to be?

Why do all these modern mutations only create disfunction?

How does blood and tissue survive 40 million years?

Anonymous

More questions, goody.

'Do these current examples of evolution have new unique functions in their DNA? Or are they just adapting with in their species?'

A new species is deemed a new species when it can no longer reproduce with its ancestor species and produce viable offspring. Dogs can no longer reproduce with wolves and create furtile offspring, for example. Speciation has also been witnessed in modern times in bacteria, insects, amphibians, fish, birds, rodents- basically most things that don't take long to reproduce.

'I don't remember evolutionary theory being able to explain complex features."

Name the feature and I'll explain it.

'How is it that as you can look further into the microspcope or further into space that it seems limitless, more complex vs. more simple?'

I'm not sure I understand the question. As you look further out in space, you see back in time. This is because the speed of light is not instontaneous, it take time to travel. Is this what you are refering to?

'How is it possible that something came from nothing? How did the scientific laws come to be?'

What you are refering to is the Big Bang, not evolution. There are many theories as to where the Big Bang came from- ranging from supernovas or black holes in a parallel universe, to touching dimensions, to God. We don't know. I'm not sure what this has to do with biology though.

'Why do all these modern mutations only create disfunction?'

They don't. Most mutations are neutral, producing no effect. A few are beneficial and an even smaller number are harmful.

'How does blood and tissue survive 40 million years?'

I believe what you are refering to here is the discovery of Tyrannosaurus tissue, which is 65 million years old. First off, the tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone. It is not true that the soft tissues are the original tissues. DNA or blood was not recovered from this sample, just fossilized tissue. DNA and blood are recovered occasionally on organisms less than 10,000 years old. If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news at all, it would be commonplace, and recovering DNA from them would be easy enough that it would have been done by now. Rather, DNA is only found on dead organisms less than 10,000 years old- wooly mammoths, saber-tooth cats, etc.

dr. theo

Dogs can't reproduce with wolves, Anonymous? You are very wrong. The wild wolf, Canis lupus, can very readily breed with Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog) if the dog doesn't get eaten first. I also challenge you to name and cite one example of speciation that can be or once was observed. You claim that "Speciation has also been witnessed in modern times in bacteria, insects, amphibians, fish, birds, rodents..." Alright, please name one unambiguous, widely accepted example of a higher organism developing into a new species (I exclude micro-organisms only because the subject is too esoteric for discussion in a forum such as this).

After making a few good points in the last paragraph about the evidence indicating an age of less than 10,000 years you make a completely inaccurate statement when you said "DNA or blood was not recovered from this sample, just fossilized tissue." No. That is not correct. If it were all fossilized there would be no discussion. It is the fact that it was NOT fossilized that makes the discovery compelling and controversial.

I'm beginning to question your claimed credentials, professor.

Anonymous

'Dogs can't reproduce with wolves, Anonymous? You are very wrong.'

I said organisms from different species cannot reproduce and produce viable offspring, organisms that can reproduce again. You and I both know this is an imperfect definition, but it is more or less the standard definition of species. In reality, evolution is a process, occuring over generations. It is impossible to draw a concrete line and saw this generation is this species and this generation is another.

'Alright, please name one unambiguous, widely accepted example'

A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's subways has speciated from Culex pipiens; Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy- one example is Primula kewensis ; Malus pumila or Hawthorn fly speciated from Rhagoletis pomonella, the Apple Maggot fly; the salamanders Ensatina klauberi and Ensatina eschscholtzi no longer interbreed and many consider them to now be seperate species, the birds Parus major and Parus minor, believed to no longer interbreed; etc.

'is not correct. If it were all fossilized there would be no discussion'

If the specimen he was refereing to was the Tyrannosaur tissue it was A) not originally soft and B) not the originial tissue.

'I'm beginning to question your claimed credentials, professor.'

Haha, as am I. I seem to be unable to convince anybody of much of anything around here. It is commonplace to debate whether Rahonavis or Velociraptor should be classified as a dinosaur or bird, or what line they evolved from- it's a whole different ballgame to debate if evolution even exists.

'The age of strata is almost exclusively determined by the presence of index fossils'

This is true, nowadays, because the concept of the geologic column is so widely accepted by paleontologists. If you find a knight's armor as an archaeologists, you assume you are looking at a medival village or castle reminants. Likewise, if you find an Allosaurus, you take for granted that you are looking at Jurassic strata, as throughout history Allosaurus has only been found in Jurassic strata.

I do not have time to address the rest of you claims now but I will hopefully get to them later.

steven riley

I find it interesting that when that when coherent statements are made, as Anonymous did above, that creationists respond by not responding

dr. theo

Anonymous DID claim that dogs and wolves cannot reproduce. He is wrong but won't admit it.

The tissue found in the T. rex fossil (and others) is collagen, vascular tissue and red blood cells! Not FOSSILS of them, they original tissue. Anonymous tries to confuse that point, but the evidence is sound as even mainstream anti-creation journals have admitted.

The supposed "species" that Anonymous names are intended to obfuscate. There are some very esoteric arguments surrounding these examples and I believe that they represent basically hybrids and not speciation. That is why I specified "unambiguous and widely accepted."

Bob Ellis

Anonymous isn't very coherent. Anonymous is very dedicated to repeating the same evolutionists propaganda that has misled a lot of people who don't take the time to think it through and realize evolution theory is a house of cards built on assumptions. And Anonymous has had all the forum for his propaganda that he's going to get here.

Bob Ellis

Nice try, but you didn't refute a single thing I said. And sadly you've proven what I said about they typical evolutionist being totally unwilling to own up to the fact that their theory is mostly guesswork.

Every single method of radiometric dating relies on the multiple assumptions I cited. You could date by every method of radiometric dating known to man, and they would still be susceptible to the same assumptions.

And to assert that these factors--constant decay rate, contamination, leeching, etc.--can be assumed to constant or absent as appropriate is laughable to the point of hysteria. As I said, you couldn't be assured of that for 100 years, much less a million or more. Which is why radiometric dating when the age is observationally known produces so many wildly erroneous ages.

No, I'm afraid evolution theory is not the "science" that some people claim it is. It is based largely on assumption and faith, and is no more scientific than creationism or intelligent design.

Ironically, creation and intelligent design are actually considerably more plausible than evolution. Creation and ID are completely workable and consistent within their own framework. Materialism/naturalism/evolution are impossible within their own framework; they deny the existence of supernatural influence, yet multiple key hinge points violate the laws of nature. A theory that requires supernatural forces to be possible, yet denies the existence of supernatural forces, is not only illogical but is laughable.

The facts are what they are; no one disagrees on them. It is the interpretation that differs, and that is just what evolution theory is: interpretation, guesswork and assumption.

If you really have an open mind, I would suggest checking out some creationist or even intelligent design theories. I think you'll find them far more logical and fitting the evidence far better.

Brian Rutledge

Bob-- You say evolution theory is impossible within its own framework, but then say it is"a theory that requires supernatural forces to be possible, yet denies the existance of supernatural forces....." I must have missed something. Where does evolutionary theory ever require that the supernatural be possible. Just show me a definition that has that in it please

Bob Ellis

Evolution and the whole ball of wax that typically comes with it (which is materialism and naturalism, i.e. a belief that the universe and all life in it came into being without the cause or aid of a supernatural creator) require a number of pivotal things to have happened in order for life and the universe to exist as we see them today.

However, some of the those things--the most critical ones, actually--are IMPOSSIBLE according to the natural laws of the universe. For instance, it is against scientific principles for something to have come from nothing--yet that is what materialists claim. We also know it is against scientific principles for matter to spontaneously organize into more highly organized systems and forms (the tendency it disorder, not order. It is also against scientific principles for life to spring from lifeless materials--yet that is what naturalists and evolutionists (who are intellectually honest enough to face the ultimate question, that is) claim happened. There is also no scientifically documented instance of an organism spontaneously gaining new genetic information or reproducing into a new organism--yet that is what evolutionists claim happened.

In the creationist framework, all of these things are possible (even evolution into new organisms, if you're a theistic evolutionist--though there are many other problems that still make it unlikely and in conflict with Scripture) because the framework takes into consideration a supernatural being to create the universe, create life, etc.

But such a concept is verboten, anathema in materialist and evolutionist doctrine; it cannot even be considered.

So evolution is thus impossible within its own "scientific" framework.

Anonymous

I believe I did address all of your 'assumptions.' But just to be sure, I'll go over them again.

You claim it is an assumption to believe radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. Really? Decay constants have never been observed to change. The grand assumption here would be that they DO change. Santa Claus has never been witnessed or documented. The burden of proof would be on you to prove he exists, not on me to prove he doesn't. Likewise, it is up to you to prove that decay constants change, not on me to prove they don't.

Again, I didn't state contamination was impossible. I said that multiple, independent dating methods were used. The exact same amount of error would have to be present in all the isotopic dating methods to produce results within 1% AND some different kind of error would have to be present in the non-isotopic dating methods that somehow produced the same results. Not only that, the exact same amount of error would need to be present across the strata layer all over the world. If I dig up a rock from the Creteceous strata in North America, Africa, and Australia, and I use three different dating methods, and I get an age of between 65-68 million years old, the chance that 3 different errors could produce the exact same results is next to impossible. Again, it is not an assumption to reason that something that is next to impossible is not occuring; it is an assumption to believe that it is.

Evolution requires no supernatural forces to be present to work, but it does not rule out supernatural forces either. Evolution states that the fittest survive and reproduce more often, passing on their genes, and that with enough genetic change over enough time they will become a different species from their ancestors, that's it. This is not an assumption either, it has been witnessed many times in the modern era in creatures with short gestation periods.

Your claim that evolution violates the laws of entropy is a common one among creationists and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of entropy. Entropy does NOT state order leads to disorder. Entropy states the OVERALL order of the universe cannot increase. It is obvious to anyone observing that order CAN increase- people and animals grow, people make cars, planes, and trains out of metals. Evolution increases order as well. The sun gives off its energy to Earth, thus becoming more disorderly. The Earth receives the energy and its plants and animals grow and evolve, thus becoming more orderly. There is no violation of entropy in the theory of evolution.

The claim that mutations cannot add information is a very odd one to me. When a mutation occurs, it changes the genetic code. The old information is lost, and new information is gained. This is the very definition of the word 'change.' Say you have a genetic code- ABC, which means you have thin brown fur. A mutation comes along an changes it to ABD, which now gives you thick white fur. An ice age comes along and, lucky for you, you are well adapted for it. You survive, and those like you survive, passing on your genes. Because you survive more often than those with thin brown fur, your species will eventually have entirely thick white fur and become a new species.

A perfect example of this is nylon-eating bacteria discovered in Japan. Bacteria have existed for much longer than nylon. They possessed no gene allowing them to digest a substance that doesn't even exist. Nylon is created, and due to a mutation, a bacteria species evolves to eat it. The information for nylon-digesting was added to the bacteria.

Evolutionists do not claim an organism can spontaneously produce a new species. It occurs over generations. Species do evolve from other species, and it has been witnessed firsthand during your lifetime, so it is not really debatable.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the universe is only 10,000 years old. If you have any credible evidence, publish it immediately and you will become a superstar overnight. Rather, every single piece of evidence available to the scientific community suggests it is far, far older. If it is only 10,000 years old, then everything we know about biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics is wrong and somebody is playing a huge trick on us.

dr. theo

Radiometric dating is a "red herring". The age of strata is almost exclusively determined by the presence of index fossils. For example, when a fossil trilobite is found in a geologic layer it is established, as far as evolutionists are concerned, that this is a 500+ billion year old Cambrian deposit. Radiometric dating is not usually checked because scientists already KNOW the age and it would be an unnecessary expense, and redundant in any case.

How, you may ask, do scientists know that trilobites are 500 billion years old? Why, that's because we only find them in 500 billion year old sedimentary layers. It's a perfect system for dating ancient evidence; the rocks are 500 byo because the fossils contained are known to be 500 byo, and we know trilobites are that old because the rocks are known to be 500 byo!

You use a very apt analogy, professor, when you said "Say you have a genetic code- ABC, which means you have thin brown fur. A mutation comes along an changes it to ABD." The genetic code is nothing less that a written language that uses only four letters. But the information contained in a bacterium has been estimated to be over four million bytes of static genetic information (not counting the RNA that makes up the RAM). The amount is a complex organism such as a mammal is exponentially greater. To believe that all that information could accumulate slowly by tiny incremental changes is absurd, especially when you consider that mutational changes are all most always detrimental to the organism, with only a few found to be neutral. Truly beneficial mutational changes are nearly non-existent. (Please don't throw out the old canard about bacterial resistance. If you are an evolutionary scientist you know very well that bacterial resistance is rarely a consequence of mutations and when it is it represents a net LOSS of genetic information.)

"There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the universe is only 10,000 years old." Really? Carbon 14 testing on coal and petro-oil consistently comes up with results of 10,000 to 50,000 years. The presence of biological tissues and blood cells in a T. rex fossil (and others) argues for a time frame of thousands of years at most, not hundreds of thousands and certainly not millions.

I realize that you have an awful lot invested in the evolutionary model, but you really do need to look at some of the evidence objectively. I finally did after 25 years of being an evolutionist and with degrees in zoology, microbiology and medicine. When I finally opened my eyes I was amazed at how beautifully the facts came together and how consistent were those facts with Bible accounts.

Bob Ellis

Decay rates have never been observed to change...for how long? How long have we been measuring decay rates? A hundred years or so? That's a pathetically short track record, especially when those who believe in the constancy of the decay rate allege the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. Weak, very weak.

You implied contamination was not a factor. And the results obtained are not nearly so close as you claim. They frequently vary widely, depending on the method used. And when results don't agree with preconceived notions of how old the material is, they are then--only then--assumed to be inaccurate and contaminated. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Talk about, um, hypocrisy. "Science" isn't very scientific if you place all your faith in the results that reinforce your preconceived notions but reject those that don't--using the same testing methods. Rocks that we observed being created 20 years ago providing radiometric dates of 2.8 million years old--very scientific. Living organisms that return C14 dates that are hundreds or thousands of years old--very "scientific" indeed.

Your assertion that the typical evolutionist does not rule out supernatural forces is disingenuous at best. I have yet to encounter anyone who believes in evolution--other than the theistic evolutionist who is trying in vain to reconcile the Bible to the unsupported assumptions of atheistic evolutionists--who will even consider the existence of a supernatural force. I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, again.

You claim that organisms have been witness to evolve into completely new creatures. Really? I have not seen the slightest hint of any such proof. While you may be talking about the minute changes that can occur in organisms from one generation to another, you certainly aren't talking about the dinosaurs-to-birds or apes-to-man type of change evolutionists talk about, are you? This having your cake and eating it too business really needs to stop.

You also claim that materialism/naturalism/evolution don't violate the law of entropy and the tendency to disorder. Interestingly, you use the development of a growing organism, and even more humorously you use the intelligently designed examples of people making cars, planes and trains to "prove" your point. Do you realize that you just undermined your own point? An external, intelligent force is required to make these things happen, yet the typical evolutionist (when he's not busy trying to have his cake and eat it, too) vehemently denies even the possibility of an intelligent force at work in the creation and order of the universe.

As to mutations and new genetic information, please refer to my previous comment regarding the alleged evolution of one species into another. Information is sometimes lost, genetic information sometimes becomes dominant, but a lizard has never gained genetic information for growing wings. It just doesn't happen. Hasn't been observed at all. And the magic dust of millions or billions of years hasn't accomplished it either; there's simply no proof in the fossil record. Darwin even admitted that the Achilles heel of his theory would be if the fossil record failed to turn up proof for his assertions. Guess what: 150 years later and still zip.

A primary weakness of the creation theory is indeed the appearance that the universe is billions of years old. After all, there is the problem of starlight observed on earth that seems to be from stars billions of light years away. All the answers are definitely not in. But there are some interesting possibilities which could explain this apparent problem.

One theory is that God created the universe long in advance of the events which took place on earth during the creation week.

Another is that the speed of light was very different in the past. While we have long thought of the speed of light as a constant, numerous experiments of the past few years have demonstrated that the speed of light can be radically changed in the laboratory under varying conditions; one experiment even slowed it nearly to a standstill. Instead of 186,000 MPS, what if the speed of light was 100x that (or more) a few thousands of years?

Then there's the possibility that the expansion of the universe comes into play. Both the Bible and modern science say the universe is expanding. What if a few thousand years ago everything was much closer together, and what if the expansion rate has not been constant?

Still another factor involves matter and the region of space occupied by earth. Last year a report came out that our area of space seems to be particularly devoid of the usual amount of matter found in most of the universe. Scientists at Oxford say this may warp our perception of distance in the universe and cause things to look farther away than they really are.

So while neither creationists nor evolutionists have all the answer, there exist some very interesting scientific possibilities in the creationist camp that evolutionists would really love to ignore. And evolutionists would also love to keep ignoring those insurmountable problems of things that simply are not possible within their own framework (matter from nothing, matter organizing to higher states, life from lifelessness, etc.).

Which theory is most likely? Well, evolution theory isn't even remotely close to the unquestionable, established scientific fact it's disciples want people to believe it is.

While both theories have their weaknesses, one is considerably better at explaining the remarkable issues of complexity and coherent biological information...and only one of them isn't faced with the brick-wall of being unworkable according to its own chief tenets.

Anonymous

Yes, decay rates have never been observed to change. You're right, this doesn't mean they CAN'T. But, if you refer to my first post, you'll again see that radiometric dating isn't the only method. When you use multiple, INDEPENDENT methods, and they all produce nearly identical results, the odds they are all wrong becomes very small, because they cannot be affected by the same types of errors. However, it is necessary that they are all wrong to accept young-earth creationism, which you seem to accept. Therefore, you need them to be wrong, which is probably why you keep insisting that they are. Again, scientific evidence is needed to prove decay constants are not constant.

'They frequently vary widely, depending on the method used. And when results don't agree with preconceived notions of how old the material is, they are then--only then--assumed to be inaccurate and contaminated.'

Is this really the way you think science works? It couldn't be farther from reality.

'Rocks that we observed being created 20 years ago providing radiometric dates of 2.8 million years old'

These statements were made by a man named H. M. Morris in the '70's. He was dating a volcano, but it was not the volcanic rock that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths", present within the rock. These gave anomalously old age because they contained excess argon that the enclosing rock did not. Morris failed to mention that the lava rock without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon dating.

'Living organisms that return C14 dates that are hundreds or thousands of years old'

This occurs in marine animals due to a phenomenon called 'dead carbon.' Carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic or Mesozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and animals living in the water build shells or bodies that give apparent dates older than they really are. Contrary to the complaints of creationists, paleontologists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, and bone would remain unaffected by this type of dead-carbon effect. If found with organisms in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if organisms are locally affected by the dead-carbon effect.

'Your assertion that the typical evolutionist does not rule out supernatural forces is disingenuous at best.'

I said the theory of evolution does not. The thoughts of an 'evolutionist' have no bearing on whether the theory of evolution is true or not.

'Interestingly, you use the development of a growing organism, and even more humorously you use the intelligently designed examples of people making cars, planes and trains to "prove" your point.'

My point was that order obviously increases in the universe if you look around. So to say evolution must be false because order can't increase is to ignore everything in the world around you.

'a lizard has never gained genetic information for growing wings'

No, information is changed. In the earliest amphibians, the hardened fins of ceolocanth-like fishes became limbs. Look at the bones of a fin, then look at the bones of an arm or leg. They look nearly identical. Limbs, feathers, eyes, teeth, etc. did not evolve from nowhere- they came from previous structures. I have to say- as a biologist- its been awhile since I've been argued with about the validity of modern genetics. I suggest you research it a bit further before you proclaim more expertise.

'Darwin even admitted that the Achilles heel of his theory would be if the fossil record failed to turn up proof for his assertions'

150 years ago. Today, nothing could be further from the truth. The fossil record is full of transitional species. Ampbians to reptiles, reptiles to dinosaurs and mammals, and dinosaurs to birds. Name any link and I'll give you 30 species which are transitional.

'Another is that the speed of light was very different in the past.'

Again, another assumption. The speed of light in a vacuum has never, ever been witnessed to change. Under laboratory conditions it can yes, when you run it through a solid or liquid, for example. But space is not a laboratory, it is a vacuum. A change in the speed of light is necessary for a young universe, but again evidence is needed before one can consider it.

'and what if the expansion rate has not been constant?'

It hasn't been. The expansion rate itself has been increasing throughout history.

'our area of space seems to be particularly devoid of the usual amount of matter'

Yes, I recall reading about this. However, this would change the above notion that the expansion rate of the universe is accellerating. It would mean the expansion rate is steady. It would not change the age.

Bob Ellis

I'm afraid the burden of proof that decay rates (along with the burden of proof on the assumptions that no contamination occurred at the beginning of the rock cycle or during the intervening alleged millions of years OR leeching has occurred during those intervening alleged millions of years) have not changed during the course of the alleged millions or billions of years remains on those making that assumption. Any reasonable person, any reasonable scientist for that matter, would consider it audacious in the extreme to make an assumption that those factors have not changed in all that time, with all the myriad of things that could have happened from a myriad of sources producing a myriad of results over the course of the alleged millions or billions of years.

The "magic dust" of millions of years is a two-edged sword, you know. Evolutionists need those millions of years to produce the "magic" that can "scientifically" do what we otherwise know is impossible according to the laws of science. Yet the vast scope of those millions and billions of years makes uniformatarian assumptions (i.e. that decay rates have not changed, that contamination has not occurred, etc.) completely laughable.

Either intentionally or through ignorance you also make an incorrect reference to the incident where rock that was about 20 years old was dated at 2.8 million years old. I don't believe Henry Morris was involved with these tests conducted in the 1990s, but Dr. Steve Austin was and they found--on rock we saw form less than 20 years prior--radiometric dates ranging from 340,000 years to 2.8 million years. That's one huge, stinking margin of error...both from 20 to 340K...and from 340K to 2.8M. Science? Go pull my other leg now.

Nice try with the "dead carbon" excuse. Funny how this can occur on organisms we know didn't die thousands of years ago, but ones for which the age cannot be established through observational science...well, somehow we magically know that wasn't a factor with these organisms. I'm running out of legs to pull, here!

You know, I'm not even going to bother with a point-by-point refutation of your juvenile attempts to avoid the conclusion that your Evolution Emperor has no clothes. Your whole beloved theology of evolution is built on assumptions, yet you hypocritically dismiss any assumption or theory that doesn't exclude a Creator.

If you have the slightest interest whatsoever in genuinely seeking out the truth--and not just protecting your theological beliefs--I highly encourage you to examine in your own heart and mind exactly why you, an otherwise seemly intelligent person, would resort to such illogical, inconsistent and hypocritical pretzels.

Until such time as you're willing to be a little more reasonable and level headed, future comments from you won't be accepted here. They are doing nothing to further the discovery of truth.

Indecisive Jake

How do you base your whole argument on so-called "assumptions" from the scientific community, while simultaneously not applying the same standard to your own opinions? That's it? If it was written somewhere, it must be true? This is the only way to enhance our understanding of the the world around us? What about the people who kept these records mental state or agendas, irrelevant you say? Unless we are talking about big bad scientists and there hidden motives attacking the pure christian truth that is obviously not skewed or bias in anyway. Gee, I wonder how you feel about climate change....

Congrats on an extremely irritating article

Bob Ellis

Why do you assume I don't apply the same standard to my own opinions? I would invite you to read the second to last paragraph again.

I'm glad you were irritated. Hopefully it will motivate you to examine and perhaps challenge some of the things you have likely assumed to be factual without any solid evidence to back them.

Stuart

Thanks for this piece. Just two days ago I admitted that after over a year of contemplating that the only logical conclusion is the creation/flood vs creation through evolution. I have never been comfortable with the theory that God used evolution to create as it goes against all other scientific laws that God created. I also did not want to limit God as that is dangerous ground to be on. There is just too much evidence for the creation/flood model that I can now accept it as the only viable explanation. This conclusion was apart from my belief that the Word that God originally gave us is absolutely true, which I have also found hard to change 7 days into millions of years.

I knew I couldn't be the only one that read this announcement wondering how it proves evolution? I'm not sure there could be an example of a fossil that would "prove" evolution. There are too many examples that disprove evolution.

I'm sure I'm cast into the group that are wearing their "blinders", but I feel I can't have had a more open mind and been more logical about this as apposed to others.

Thanks for continuing to expose this pernicous lie.

Bob Ellis

Thank you so much for commenting, Stuart!

I went through the same analysis and evaluation process about 12 years ago.

Before that, I simply unquestioningly accepted everything I was fed by academia, the "science" community and the media about evolution. When I started looking at the fact that some of the "scientific" claims associated with materialism/naturalism/evolution were impossible within the very framework of that worldview, and that many other claims were highly speculative and improbable, the "facade of fact" surrounding evolution began to crumble for me.

And when I realized that the basis for all these claims was more than 90% assumption and about 10% interpretation of the evidence, my belief in evolution fell with a great crash.

Fortunately I also became aware of many creationist theories about life and the universe that were not simply "Because God said so" but actually made sense and fit the evidence better.

Despite the disdain and snottiness you'll certainly hear from those who still can't cope with this reality, you'll find your intellectual stimulation a lot more fulfilling now.

Welcome to the light!

DCM

Here are a few quotes from scientists who, to the best of my knowledge, wrote what they did without having any pro-creationism bias.

“…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all.”
- Dr. Marc Kirchner, chairman of the Dept. of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School

“I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century... I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research... Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
- Dr. Philip Skell, Professor of Chemistry, Penn State University

“The final result of all my researches and discussions is that the theory of evolution should be discarded in its entirety, because it always leads to extreme contradictions and confusing consequences when tested against the empirical results of research…. The theory of evolution is a severe obstacle for biological research. As many examples show, it actually prevents the drawing of logical conclusions from even one set of experimental material. Because everything must be bent to fit this speculative theory, an exact biology cannot develop.”
- Dr. Heribert Nilsson, "The Synthetic Formation of Kinds"

Bob Ellis

An excellent point, DCM! I frequently hear evolutionists tout with the utmost arrogance that humanity would fall into the stone age and resort to reading chicken guts if the theory of evolution is not at the forefront and paramount in every single scientific question and line of inquiry.

And of all the gusts of hot air blown by evolutionists (and there are a lot of gusts, and a lot of big ones), this one may just be the biggest load of hooey of them all.

DCM

Of course, none of this addresses the fact that the fossil finds simply prove nothing in the first place. Well, they *do* prove how desperate evolutionists are for anything they can pass off as "proof."

Evolutionism doesn't just get passed off as valid science, but as something *foundational* that science itself depends on. The reality is that evolutionism contributes nothing useful to science, but only manages to feed and support itself; this has been observed & documented even by some Darwinists. And often, as Bob alludes to toward the end of the article, evolutionism is an outright science-stopper, wasting time & money by misdirecting research.

Claiming that scientists widely support evolutionism doesn't lend credence to evolutionism; it removes credibility from scientists.

Fossil Find: Missing Link or Mountains of Assumptions?

Archives

Key Quotes

Other News

Other Commentary

Other Blog Posts

Admin

May 2009
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr				Jun »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Fossil Find: Missing Link or Mountains of Assumptions?

Related Posts

Archives

Key Quotes

Other News

Other Commentary

Other Blog Posts

Admin