Posted on 07/11/2009 9:58:05 AM PDT by Tamar Rush
Foiled Forever by Fossil Finding
Last January, Scientific American declared 2009 as “the year of Darwin” in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the revolutionary evolutionist who turned man into a monkey.
The celebration is understandable.
No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.
No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.
No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.
His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.
But a recent finding in Kenya has sent evolutionists into a tail-spin.
And freshly unearthed discoveries of Darwin’s life have caused the academic community to reconsider his greatness and his contribution to advancement of modern science.
The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.
Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.
By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nocompromisemedia.com ...
Each and every living cell (except for red blood cells) contains DNA which is approximately 3 billion lines of code. For evolution to be true either this code self-assembled itself and/or re-wrote itself through random haphazard mutations. Code that can self-replicate the creatures and code that can repair and rebuild key features of those same creatures. Code that if typed out into books would approximate a stack of books equal to the height of the Washington Monument! Code that is so complex we’ve barely even scratched the surface of knowledge present. Code that appears to be incomplete with the finite knowledge we’ve discovered about it’s complete dependence upon RNA and vice versa with DNA - neither of which is sufficient as a source to create the other.
Then - if that’s now hard enough to believe about the ‘truth’ behind evolution - how about the ‘best’ evidence for micro-evolution showing just the changes we see in different breeds of dogs, all descended from the wolf, and all having a smaller functional set of DNA then the wolf which is actually an prime example of devolution! A population of dacshunds can not ever be re-bred to return to their former status as a wolf.
You seem to be indicating that the Bible cannot be trusted. Do you really think it is only accurate about spiritual matters but not to be trusted because some manmade science or religion conflicts with it? Do you actually believe the Bible is inaccurate about any/all history and earthly teaching yet should be trusted completely regarding the spiritual? Are you even aware that all archeological evidence that parallels with the Bible is 100% accurate. How could anyone really trust the Bible if they are to believe and figure out for themselves that some parts of it are wrong?
Personally I think you need to begin studying more of the conclusions of other christian and non-christian scientists and trusting less in Charles Darwin’s research. Are you aware of Darwin’s background in the least? Do you accept others conclusion so easily without looking into their backgrounds? Do you understand any of the physics described by Einstein?
Christian faith is decided at an individual level - not something to be handed down through religious manmade dogma and teachings.
As the thread is now in General/Chat can we use potty language, please?
The guidelines are not as strict off the Religion Forum. Still profanity is not allowed anywhere. And I am also an Admin Moderator.
“1. What is the evolutionary explanation for stasis in the fossil record?”
This is an a paper on that very subject
Abstract.—The fossil record displays remarkable stasis in many species over long time periods, yet studies of extant populations often reveal rapid phenotypic evolution and genetic differentiation among populations. Recent advances in our understanding of the fossil record and in population genetics and evolutionary ecology point to the complex geographic structure of species being fundamental to resolution of how taxa can commonly exhibit both short-term evolutionary dynamics and long-term stasis.
http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Dynamics_of_Evolutionary_Stasis.pdf
“2. What is the evolutionary explanation for polystrate fossils?”
This is what I found for this one:
Fossil trees trunks, which extend upward through multiple layers of limestone, have been found in many areas of the world including Kingston, Ontario [there are no such trees in Kingston, Ontario -AM] and Joggins, Nova Scotia [emphasis added].
“This suggests that these very thick deposits were deposited very rapidly. Similar polystata trees have been found extending upright through successive seams of coal. Some of these trees have supposedly stood upright while successive cycles of oceans and peat swamp have pasted through an area. You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood.”
One of the best, and longest-known “fossil forest” occurrences is a locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia.
It is Carboniferous in age, and was first described in detail in the late 1800s. Here is a quote from Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180) on the nature of the trees at this locality, in a beautiful cliff section over 1km thick:
“In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader will observe the words ‘Underclay, Stigmaria [a type of fossil tree trunk]’ frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a seam of coal. An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson’s emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30). The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.
“It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position.”
There is very little, with the exception of terminology, that would be different in a “modern” interpretation of these features, and Dawson has much more detail on the other sedimentological features found at Joggins that support his interpretation. Dawson records well over a dozen horizons with large upright trees, and smaller ones are even more common. The section at Joggins can still be visited today, and is particularly well-known for the small reptile fossils found there (they often occur inside the upright tree stumps, apparently they fell in the hollow stump). There are usually a few upright trees exposed on the shore, although the rapid erosion of the 10m+ high cliffs means the exposed examples change every year.
Given that an “in place” occurrence was convincingly determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and many other “fossil forest” localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not been recognized by modern “young Earth global flood” [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and say, “See? They could be transported during the flood.”. This argument is completely fallacious, because most “fossil forests” do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The “transported floating upright stumps” model [2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of “fossil forest” occurrences.
As for Malone’s “problem” with the “thousands of years” for the tree to remain upright for “slow accumulation” to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.
One of the most compelling features of Dawson’s comments, from a YEGF creationist’s perspective, may be the closing remarks of his book, in the conclusion section on p.671
Statements expressing similar sentiments can be found in most geological books of the period (e.g., Murchison’s “Siluria”, where the Silurian and other Paleozoic systems are first defined):
“Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work.”
Dawson has no theological problems with the conclusions he drew, which are basically similar to the ones drawn by geologists now. Many other geologists of the period were devoutly religious, and clearly expressed the fact in their publications.
Apparently, many 19th century geologists share a common philosophical framework with modern creationists, but, strangely enough, modern creationists come to completely different conclusions from both the 19th century geologists and current geologists. The common appeal by modern creationists to an “atheistic” or “humanistic” philosophical framework that “taints” the interpretations of science is quite ridiculous in light of the strong beliefs of many historical scientists, particularly in geology. Why should creationists still have a problem with their conclusions, more than 100 years later?
Malone, along with many “young Earth global flood creationists”, have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the “polystrate fossil trees” part of their presentation. “Polystrate fossil trees” are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
For your 3rd question pease provide some specific examples of the hundred of so “younger’ clocks. Your question is too vague to allow a proper response
“4. What was it that Darwin himself said would absolutely cause his theory of evolution to fall apart? Personally I think the quote from Darwin is the best evidence against evolution but you’ll have to do your own digging to see what he said.”
I assume you are referring to this quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.” ~ Charles Darwin.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1DHFRZPBWXTHI
I do not see any evidence against evolution in that quote, when viewed in its correct context. Darwin is simply posing a question, and then goes on to provide an answer to the question.
This is a perfect example of quote mining; somehow I do not think quote mining is something that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would approve of.
By attempting to use this quote of context you are creating a deliberate falsehood, and if I am not mistaken I think the 9th commandant addresses that subject.
Here is a question for you. Provide an answer then go and pick up your Noble prize. Should be quite easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q&feature=player_embedded
At the time that Timothy (actually one of Timothy’s followers) wrote that, “scripture” was NOT well defined.
The Bible as it exists today did not exist then, the Books were not bound in one volume at all.
I suggest you read the above, to see, from the perspective of a Presbyterian Bishop who converted to the Catholic Church, how the Bible was actually formed.
I suggest you look at this link, to see what the history of the Catholic Church shows, as far as the original Bible. At the time of the original Bible, the Eastern Orthodox were still in full union with Rome, and there was really only ONE Christian faith. There were many heretical faiths, and that is why a formal decision had to be made about what “Books” were really in the “Bible”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2286074/posts
As far as the Catholic Bible having more books?
Martin Luther was right to object to indulgences, however his “cure” was to eliminate anything that went against HIS theology, even though the Temples at which Jesus prayed and taught absolutely contained Maccabees and other Catholic Books.
The BIBLE is “man made” -—
Inspired by God, YES, but the final word on all matters?
NO!
And it was never intended to be used that way!
The various authors in the Bible often disagree with each other. That makes them no less Christian or Hebrew than an argument in the Continental Congress made one a “patriot” and another a “traitor” -—
The kooky liberals. They settled out of court.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!! Homo erectus is believed to have lived up to 1.8 MILLION years ago.
Step 1: Set up a false premise based on a lie, claim your premise proves something that is a lie.....then push the lie through an ignorant population.
So, you agree, then, that these foot prints are 1.5 million years old....right?
I can speculate on a couple of reasons. One, the lieberals (sp inten) don't believe in God, since that belief might hamper their ""lifestyle"". It's easier for them to pontificate on the non-existence of God through Darwinism. And much more convenient for them. Two, the leftists in the media are not capable of admitting that they are wrong about anything. It's just not possible. At least in their tiny little minds. I'll add yet a third reason. Leftists are anti-God and anti-Christian. As such, I fully believe that they are, either deliberately or unwittingly (useful idiots) working for the dark side, ie Satan/Lucifer/whatever. Accordingly, everything they say is a LIE, just as the one that leads them.
(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761586359/Homo_erectus.html)
That's one helluva "gap" in timeline there. I guess that's why it's called a theory. Scientists don't know (for sure) a damned thing.
They do, however, know that they don't choose to believe in God as the creator.
And that's one helluva BIAS.
“That’s one helluva “gap” in timeline there. I guess that’s why it’s called a theory. Scientists don’t know (for sure) a damned thing.”
—I think you misread the article. From your reply it sounds like you are reading the “1.8 million to 30,000 years” as a range of uncertainty, but that’s not what they mean. What the article is saying is that the species of Homo erectus existed during the entire period of 1.8 million years ago to 30,000 years ago (surviving in a few pockets in Asia).
It’s the same as saying that Thomas Jefferson lived from 1743 to 1826. It’s not that we’re not whether he lived in 1743 or in 1826, or some year in between - what is meant is that Jefferson was alive from 1743 to 1826 - it’s not a gap or range of uncertainty.
However, the fact remains. Scientists only "believe" this to be true. They don't know for sure. Ergo, the 'theory' aspect.
And yet, I have observed leftists pushing this ""theory"" as fact for decades now.
Do you disagree with that?
“However, the fact remains. Scientists only “believe” this to be true. They don’t know for sure. Ergo, the ‘theory’ aspect.”
—Generally scientists believe that there should be at least some room for skepticism of all theories and “facts”, since we are, after all, fallible. So while most scientists consider evolution to be a fact, that doesn’t necessarily mean “impossible to be wrong”. There are many theories considered both “theory” and “fact” (germ theory, atomic theory, cell theory, heliocentric theory, etc).
I really hadn’t noticed evolution/Darwinism being pushed more by “leftists” than any other group. The vast majority of scientists of all persuasions believe in evolution.
Some christian science groups that endorse evolution as fact are these folks:
http://www.asa3.org/
and these folks:
http://biologos.org/
Wow...the Bible is basically God speaking to us. Often referrred to as The Word, i.e. the Word of God Himself. God PLAINLY tells us this. I suppose the best way to understand this is to get a student Bible. It makes all the difference in the world. I wouldn't rely on some denomination or mortal person telling me what the Bible is or isn't. Ask God to speak directly to you and I guarantee you He will and this version is as good a way to do that as any.
that is the most cogent thing I have read on a religious discussion in a long time!...:o)
“I really hadn’t noticed evolution/Darwinism being pushed more by “leftists” than any other group.”
Well, here let me help you notice:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
“The vast majority of scientists of all persuasions believe in evolution”.
Vast? Meanwhile this list is growing.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
But you do make a point...I’m certain MOST journalists think they’re actually delivering the news, and then there’s those that work for Fox, etc.
I assume the question comes to your mind from the reading of Genesis 1:1.."In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Had you read the statement carefully it says that, "In the beginning...God.."He existed prior to the beginning. As you must know from Einsteins Theory of General Relativity, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the findings of the microwave background echo (for which Penzial and Wilson received the Nobel award) of the Big Bang (or the moment of creation), the findings of COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer-a NASA probe in 1989, the findings of George Smoot, COBE's program director, the findings of WMAP, a later probe which confirmed COBEs findings....all point to a moment of creation. Einsteins theory of General Relativity, and it is essentially settled science, says that TIME, SPACE, MATTER, ENERGY...all were created in the beginning. So to answer your question, time (how long was a day before there was the heaven and an Earth), as we recon it, did not exist. God, as the science referenced above, is timeless, nonspacial, incredibly powerful, personal (to have decided to create the universe ex nihlo).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.